This week in Washington IP events, Congressional hearings on technology and innovation take place through Wednesday, while the House Government Operations Subcommittee kicked the week off Monday afternoon with a look at the most recent round of government agency IT acquisition scores under FITARA. At noon on Tuesday, the House Cybersecurity Subcommittee discusses cybersecurity issues related to the 2020 elections. Over in the Senate, committee hearings will focus on cybersecurity recommendations from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, cybersecurity in the energy sector, as well as oversight of the Federal Trade Commission. Elsewhere, the Aspen Institute explores innovations in carbon removal and democratic participation, while New America closes the week out with a conversation on racial equity in technological platforms.

House Subcommittee on Government Operations

Hybrid Hearing on FITARA 10.0

At 2:00 PM on Monday in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

This was the 10th biannual hearing held by the House Government Operations Subcommittee to assess the implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), a 2014 law passed to overhaul aging IT systems across federal agencies. According to a transcript of a July 20 hearing of the subcommittee, this hearing marked the first time since the passage of FITARA that no federal agency scored a D or F on the IT acquisition strategy scorecard. The first witness panel for the hearing included Clare Martorana, Chief Information Officer, Office of Personnel Management; Jason Gray, Chief Information Officer, Department of Education; Maria A. Roat, Deputy Federal Chief Information Officer, Office of Management and Budget; and Carol Harris, Director, IT Management Issues, Government Accountability Office. The second panel included David Powner, Director of Strategic Engagement and Partnerships, The MITRE Corporation; LaVerne Council, CEO, Emerald One, LLC; and Richard Spires, Principal, Richard A. Spires Consulting.

House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, & Innovation

Secure, Safe, and Auditable: Protecting the Integrity of the 2020 Elections

At 12:00 PM on Tuesday, online video webinar.

Cybersecurity in voting systems is a major topic of concern every election season but especially so during presidential elections. In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been facilitating contact between cybersecurity experts and local election officials along with providing other resources to promote security in voting systems. The witness panel for this hearing will include David Levine, Elections Integrity Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund of the United States; Sylvia Albert, Director of Voting and Elections, Common Cause; Amber McReynolds, CEO, National Vote at Home Institute; and John Gilligan, President and CEO, Center for Internet Security, Inc.

Senate Committee on Armed Services

Findings and Recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission

At 2:30 PM on Tuesday in 106 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The Cyberspace Solarium Commission released its report on the state of cybersecurity strategy implementation including 75 recommendations on promoting cyber deterrence in the U.S., many of which have been included in amendments to bills that have been passed by Congress this summer. In early June, the commission also released a white paper on cybersecurity lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic. The witness panel for this hearing will include Senator Angus S. King, Jr. (I-ME), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission; Representative Michael J. Gallagher (R-WI), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission; and Brigadier General John C. Inglis, ANG (Ret.), Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission.

The Brookings Institution

Breaking Up Big Tech: Should Congress Do It?

At 4:00 PM on Tuesday, online video webinar.

Increased antitrust regulation of major tech firms like Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon has been a field of political debate that has become increasingly bipartisan in recent years. This event will explore whether these companies wield monopoly power and whether government action must be taken in order to protect the public interest. The event will feature a discussion with a panel include Kara Swisher, Co-Founder and Editor-at-Large, Recode, and Columnist, The New York Times; Tom Wheeler, Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation; Oliver Darcy, Senior Media Reporter, CNN; and moderated by Dipayan Ghosh, Co-Director, Digital Platforms & Democracy Project, Harvard Kennedy School, and Faculty Member, Harvard Law School.

The Aspen Institute

Aspen Tech Policy Hub Demo Day Improving Democracy Through Technology

At 9:00 AM on Wednesday, online video webinar.

The Aspen Tech Policy Hub at the Aspen Institute is a tech policy incubator featuring an in-residence fellowship program in the San Francisco area. This particular demonstration day explores projects by policy hub fellows related to the theme Improving Democracy Through Technology with projects focused on identifying dark ads meant to spread election disinformation, automated advocates for scalable legal service provision and facilitating feedback to government officials from underprivileged communities. Presentations of these projects will be offered by policy hub fellows Elizabeth Allendorf, AI Engineer, Northrop Grumman; Matthew Volk, Senior Engineer, Facebook; Jessica Cole, Civic Technologist and Former Head of Innovation and Economic Development, City of Walnut Creek, CA; and Amy Wilson, Former Managing Director, MACH37. Following the presentations will be remarks by California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cullar.

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Hearing to Examine Efforts to Improve Cybersecurity for the Energy Sector

At 10:00 AM on Wednesday in 366 Dirksen.

In early May, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on securing the bulk-power system across the U.S., an order which requires various efforts by energy providers and government officials to mitigate risks associated with cyber attacks which can negatively impact the U.S. economy and national defense. In early July, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a request for information in the Federal Register seeking information pursuant to Mays executive order to identify current practices in the energy industry to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities, especially from Russian and Chinese sources. The witness panel for this hearing will include Alexander Gates, Senior Advisor, Office of Policy for Cybersecurity, Energy Security, & Emergency Response, U.S. Department of Energy; Joseph McClelland, Director, Office of Energy Infrastructure Security, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Steve Conner, President and CEO, Siemens Energy, Inc.; and Thomas F. OBrien, Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer, PJM Interconnection.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Oversight of the Federal Trade Commission

At 10:00 AM on Wednesday in 253 Russell Senate Office Building.

Following swiftly on the heels of a House Antitrust Subcommittee hearing last week featuring the CEOs of major U.S. tech firms, this Senate hearing to provide oversight of the FTC is likely to focus on the agencys enforcement of antitrust regulations against the tech ruling class. Advance coverage of this hearing indicates that topics of interest will also likely include the regulation of social media content as well as digital privacy concerns. The witness panel for this hearing will include the Honorable Joe Simons, Chairman, FTC; the Honorable Noah Phillips, Commissioner, FTC; the Honorable Rohit Chopra, Commissioner, FTC; the Honorable Rebecca Slaughter, Commissioner, FTC; and the Honorable Christine Wilson, Commissioner, FTC.

The Aspen Institute

Innovators in Carbon Removal: A Virtual Exchange of Ideas

At 2:00 PM on Wednesday, online video webinar.

In late July, a bipartisan coalition of Senators introduced the Carbon Removal, Efficient Agencies, Technology Expertise (CREATE) Act, a bill that would create a comprehensive federal initiative for carbon dioxide removal by establishing a carbon management program with officials from various federal agencies including the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, as well as the creation of four working groups to enhance existing research projects. This event, the latest in the Aspen Institutes Innovators in ________: A Virtual Exchange of Ideas series, will feature a discussion on carbon capture and utilization with David Elenowitz, President and Founder, Zero Carbon Partners.

New America

A Conversation on Racial Equity and Technology

At 5:00 PM on Wednesday, online video webinar.

Since its advent about two decades ago, the Internet has been hailed as one of the most democratizing technologies in terms of providing access to information to all, including underprivileged classes who have historically not had access to many useful resources. However, some commentators have pointed out how Internet-based frameworks still work to eliminate opportunities for many members of these underprivileged classes on search engines, social media platforms and more. This event will feature a discussion with a panel including Dr. Charlton McIlwain, Vice Provost, Faculty Engagement and Development, and Director, Public Interest Technology Alliance, New York University; Dr. Michele Claibourn, Director, Research Data Services, Social, Natural, and Engineering Sciences, University of Virginia Library, and Co-Director, Commas Lab; and Saif Y. Ishoof, Vice President for Engagement, Florida International University.

More here:

This Week in Washington IP: FTC Oversight, Big Tech Antitrust Issues and Promoting Cybersecurity During the Election Cycle - IPWatchdog.com

Big Tech Companies are Helping Employers Test Workers

As businesses continue to grapple with the question of how to reopen safely, a number of big tech names are stepping up and offering testing and contact tracing COVID services to employers.

Returning to work means rethinking a number of safety and health precautions, and companies are trying to figure out how to conduct testing, do contact tracing and enforce social distancing. Earlier this summer, however, a handful of big tech companies like Fitbit and Verily stepped up to provide companies with health-vetting, workforce tools.

Verily Life Sciences, a sister company of Google, worked quickly to introduce a free coronavirus-screening site for the public and set up testing location in March earlier this year. It took some time to work efficiently, but as of June (a whole two months ago), it had helped 220,000 people get testing in 13 states.

Since then, Verily has worked towards helping employers by introducing a health screening and analytics service for businesses trying to safely reopen during the pandemic. Earlier this year, Verily announced an app-based health screening service for businesses and schools called Healthy at Work.

The app provides COVID-19 diagnostic testing for employees and makes recommendations to employers about how often employees should be retested based on local health data and test results.

Employers are really focusing on how to ensure that they are not the source of another outbreak, said Dr. Vivian Lee, the president of health platforms at Verily, a unit of Googles parent company, Alphabet. And that they do not wind up in a situation where theyre putting the safety of their employees at risk when they need to be back in an office or a workplace setting.

Other big tech companies are following Verilys lead. For example, Microsoft and the larger insurer United Health Group recently collaborated on a free symptom-checking app that helps target workers at risk for the virus and recommend testing resources.

Read more:

Big Tech Companies are Helping Employers Test Workers - Occupational Health and Safety

New York lawmakers have introduced a new antitrust bill that will make it simpler for authorities to sue big tech companies for alleged breaches of monopoly powers.

The sultrily-named S8700A bill is seen as a lodestar for states across the US, which have become increasingly worried about tech firms influence to manipulate their markets. Senator Mike Gianaris told The Guardian that leading tech brands have grown to dangerous levels and we need to start reining them in.

Gianaris says the new law is an update for the 21st century, during which the so-called GAFA companiesGoogle, Amazon, Facebook and Applehave amassed huge wealth and the power to drown other firms out of their respective verticals.

Previous antitrust legislation required two companies to fix prices. Actions by single entities are far tougher to prosecute. Much of the problem today in the 21st century is unilateral action by some of these behemoth tech companies and this bill would allow, for the first time, New York to engage in antitrust enforcement for unilateral action, said Gianaris.

S8700A will be discussed when New York returns to work later this month, but is unlikely to pass until early next year. It follows a crescendoing national conversation about the power of big tech. Last week a House committee interrogated the leaders of the GAFA firms.

Among the many accusations leveled at Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and co. was one that they are killing the American economy. Admissions by the leaders spurred Gianaris and fellow lawmakers into action.

Go here to see the original:

New York Preps New Antitrust Laws, with Big Tech in Sights Red Herring - Red Herring

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Over the past decade, its almost been too easy for Americans to manage their wealth. A textbook 60/40 portfolio in its simplest incarnation, exposure to the S&P 500 Index and Treasury bonds was an effortless winner. The U.S. boasted the worlds best stock market, and bonds, apart from offering interest income, provided a nice hedge against equity risks.

Now we live in extraordinary times thatdemanda reshuffle. Swapping out some bonds for gold and some U.S. technology stocks for Chinese ones could offer a better hedge: Both can be consideredcredit default swaps against President Donald Trumps chaotic policymaking.

You could argue that the wreckage left byCovid-19, combined with whatsquickly shaping up to be a cold war between the worlds two largest economies,is the closest weve come to World War III. And just like wartime episodes of the past, were seeing disrupted global supply chains, border lockdownsand restricted movements in labor.

War is inflationary. The cheap car parts made in Chinas inland city of Wuhan can no longer land in the U.S., and your French wine could cost more as transportation logistics gettrickier.Moreover, the Federal Reserve has been flooding its financial system with cash. In just three months, assets held by the central bank ballooned by two-thirds, to almost $7 trillion. To make matters worse, the Fed is mulling a more relaxed stance towardinflation, ready to abandon preemptive rate hikeseven though consumer expectations have beenticking up since May.

As Ive argued in a recent piece for Bloomberg Businessweek, bonds are no longer effective equity hedges in an ultra-low-rate world that faces inflationary pressure; gold can do a better job. But after a neck-breaking rally, its natural to ask if werealready too late to the game.

History can be our guide. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, gold broke out and continued marching higher until September 2011, even asTea Party belt-tighteners took control of the national narrative in the 2010 midterm election. A decade on, the Republican Partys libertarian wing has all but disappeared, and is replaced by a cross-the-aisle nod to modern monetary theorists, who brushaside fiscal austerity. The Tea Party is no longer here to sour the gold rally.

Meanwhile, since were at war, might it be smart tohedge against the possibility of losing? This cold war isnt over a plot of land or sea, but domination over next-generation technology.

The U.S. has the absolute advantage now, withchip and robotic designs far ahead of Chinas,but that edge is slipping away. While Washington is wrangling over trillions of dollars ofstimulusto fend off a recession caused by waves of coronavirus outbreaks, China, which has the pandemic relatively undercontrol, is only strengthening its tech resolve.

For Beijing, its killing two birds with one stone. The $1.4 trillion hard tech invesmentis the nations new fiscal stimulus package. Instead of building more roads to nowhere, China is installing 5G base stations.

Its high time to consider diversifying from U.S. stocks, anyhow. There have been nagging worries about the market being on a tear even withthe economy in the dumps. Meanwhile, Big Techhas become too dominant, with the top five mega-cap names now accounting for more than 20% of the S&P 500 and its entire gain this year. This mighthelpexplain why mainland firms that recently went public in New York are outperforming their U.S. counterparts, despite the Trump administrations attempt to delist China Inc.

Now, I am not advocating that investors plowtheir money into Chinas big tech companies, because they face the exact same problems that U.S. Big Techhas overbought stocks and impossible expectations. This years passive flows only worsened the concentration risk of benchmark indexes. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. account for a third of the MSCI China Index and about 14% of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Rather, investors should do their homework on smaller hard-tech companies. The truth is, once you identify a promising tech seedling, it doesnttake aventure capitalists patience to watch it blossom. Indias Reliance Industries Ltd. joined the Century Club stocks with over $100 billion market cap in just three months. Tencent is another example of a melt-up.

Story continues

Good wealth management is all about diversification. If youreunsure of Trumps wartime strategies, add some of gold and China exposure to your portfolio.

(Adds details on concentration risk of Chinas big tech companies in the 11th paragraph.)

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Shuli Ren is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asian markets. She previously wrote on markets for Barron's, following a career as an investment banker, and is a CFA charterholder.

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion

Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.

2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Follow this link:

Inflation Is Coming, and Big Tech Won't Protect You - Yahoo Finance

Heres a fun fact: This exact week of August 1962, Neil Sedekas Breaking Up is Hard to Do landed in the #1 spot ofBillboards Hot 100. Thanks to last weeks Congressional antitrust hearings, this bit of trivia is suddenly ironic. Could the once unthinkablebreaking up the largest, most powerful technology corporations in the worldactually not be so hard to do?

Given the current political climate, and what I saw last week, Id say yes.

This scenario, of course, is the ultimate nightmare for the CEOs who run Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. For Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sunder Pichai, comfortably beaming into the remote inquiry (using Cisco WebEx, their competitors system), it has long loomed as a potential Black Swan event, but seldom has it seemed a real possibility. Perhaps thats why, despite their own brilliance, stellar business track records, platoons of attorneys, 1.4 million documents, 400 hours of organizing meetings, and 20 press briefings, none of them seemed truly prepared for what they faced last week.

Unlike the stumbling, bumbling Q&As of the past that did little but assure the American people that their representatives in Washington had zero grasp of technology, this time lawmakersfrom both partiescame prepared. They alleged a gamut of abuses of power by Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Googlesquashing competitors, undermining innovation, price discrimination, required tie-ins of across bundled businesses, covert consumer data harvesting, privacy violations and foreign power election interference, irresponsible but remunerative biased gateways to content such as hate speechthe list goes on and on.

Most worrisome for Big Tech, some of the complaints focused on the consequences to consumers of allegedly monopolistic behavior such as predatory pricing or buying out major competitors to reduce consumer choice and later drive up price, potentially classic violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 or potential restraint of trade issues covered by the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, (such as Amazons supposed access barriers to AT&Ts HBO Max content, and Apples prohibitively-priced $46 billion App Store business).

Denying all such allegations, the Tech Titans survived the battle, but they may be losing the long war. None of them did much to build credibility in the publics eyes, and all of them are certain to face more scrutiny in the years ahead. Regardless of who takes control of the White House and Congress next year, theyll face the most populist political environment in decades. Gaudy earnings and evasive testimony? Hardly assets if the nation enters a second Great Recession and the national mood turns even darker.

It was a similar atmosphere in the late 19th Century, when the Republican Teddy Roosevelt Administration pioneered antitrust prosecution, culminating in the 1911 breakup of John D. Rockefellers Standard Oil. The charges? The misused power they obtained frompurchasing its competitors andusing its size to drive benefits not available to smaller companies such as discount rates from railroads.

The 1984 breakup of the originalAT&T into 8 regional operating companies as well as separate manufacturing and research businesses seemed unthinkable at the time (it was designed as a legal monopoly in 1885). But it happened,with checkered success, sparking thecreation of new businesses such as Cisco and Apple, which would not have been possible under the original structure.

Even past clearance is not shield.For example, P&G was ordered to divest Clorox in 1960years after FTC clearance in 1957.Similarly, while regulators cleared the Comcast/NBC merger in 2011, creatinga$30 billion media behemoth that controls both how television shows and movies are made and how they are delivered. Yet, six years later, the anti-trust division of the Trump Administrations Department of Justicessued to break up the $85 merger of AT&T and TimeWarner,a plan with identical market implications, despite an antitrust chief whose career publications held the opposite positions before his political appointment.

Rather than the more current concern over horizontal integration of former competitors, this breakup move was built upon the1938 and 1948 government action against Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century-Fox, Lowes, RKO, Warner Bros., Columbia Pictures, Universal and United Artists which separated production and distribution of films. After two costly years of appeals, theAT&T/TimeWarner deal was ultimately cleared by courts.

Its exactly this kind of activist atmosphere the Tech Titans should fear, an atmosphere where anything can happen. A world in which, for instance, the Trump Administration unilaterally threatens to shut down the hugely popular TikTok app over alleged national security risks, pushing them into the arms of Microsoftand no one really blinks an eye. Strange days indeed.

Watching the leaders of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple testify last week, I was reminded of what one CEO told me forty two years ago while I was researching aHarvard Business Reviewarticle examining why employees at companies conspired to fix prices, despite the well-known risks and painful penalties.

We point out that anticompetitive practices hurt the companys ethical standards, public image, internal morale, and earnings, he said. Yet we wind up in trouble continually You begin to wonder about the intelligence of these people. Either they dont listen or theyre just plain stupid.

Link:

For Big Tech, Breaking Up May Not Be Hard To Do - Chief Executive Group

Following last week's waterfall of quarterly tech reports, the earnings season continues this week with blue chips leading the way, one being Walt Disney Co(NYSE: DIS) reporting later today. But we also see the earnings of pioneers such as Roku Inc(NASDAQ: ROKU), Nikola (NASDAQ: NKLA) and newly public companies such as Virgin Galactic (NYSE: SPCE), Uber Technologies Inc.(NYSE: UBER) and Beyond Meat (NASDAQ: BYND).

Nikola Corporation, the maker of battery-electric and hydrogen powered vehicles will report its first quarter since its June listing. Despite not having sold a single vehicle yet, its company's market capitalization already exceeded $10.8 billion last Friday.

The Clorox Company (NYSE: CLX) reported Monday and posted the highest sales growth the company has seen in its modern history. With a 24% increase in organic sales last quarter and a 10% increase in organic sales in its latest fiscal year, it followed its peer personal care companies including Kimberly-Clark Corporation (NYSE: KMB), Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE: CL) and The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE: PG) that already reported strong results as home goods and personal health-care products are still enjoying a high level of demand.

Troubled travel companies crushed by the pandemic are also set to report, including Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NYSE: NCLH) and Wynn Resorts Limited (NASDAQ: WYNN). Just like airlines, these companies struggled to readjust their operations and slash costs as quickly as possible to be able to survive the severe reduction in demand. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc (NYSE: HLT) and TripAdvisor Inc (NASDAQ: TRIP) are also set for a dismal performance as quarantine and travel restrictions are likely to have significantly impacted their top lines.

Pharmaceutical companies rank highly on our list these days and a few important players are also set to report this week. Regeneron Pharmaceutical (NASDAQ: REGN) just revealed it signed a $450 million contract with the U.S. government for its anti-coronavirus cocktail.Mylan Inc (NASDAQ: MYL) is a stock with a strong history of beating estimates and as it recently rolled out the branding for its giant generics combo that is being developed with Pfizer Inc (NYSE: PFE), it seems well-positioned to continue that trend. Although their merger is not official yet, it was approved by its shareholders on June 30th. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY), a biopharmaceutical giant, is expected to report a year-over-year increase in earnings on higher revenues for its quarter that ended in June.

On Thursday, we also have some very interesting players to look forward to such as Datadog Inc (NASDAQ: DDOG). For the quarter, the company expects to report a break-even at the very least, with revenues in the range between $134 million and $136 million. Management warned that coronavirus-led disruptions are expected to have hurt net retention rate and new customer additions as well as caused delays in completing deals. But Datadog's potential remains intact in any scenario. Moreover, its growing international presence is likely to have benefited its performance during the quarter.

We are far from being out of the woods, but each week we are getting closer to leaving the pandemic and the resulting economic crisis behind us. This week will also provide us with significant insights on how to live in a COVID-19 reality that has turned our world upside down.

This article is not a press release and is contributed by a verified independent journalist for IAMNewswire. It should not be construed as investment advice at any time please read the full disclosure. IAM Newswire does not hold any position in the mentioned companies. Press Releases If you are looking for full Press release distribution contact: press@iamnewswire.com Contributors IAM Newswire accepts pitches. If you're interested in becoming an IAM journalist contact: contributors@iamnewswire.com

The post Last Week Was About Big Tech, This Week Is About Bluechips appeared first on IAM Newswire.

Photo by Carlos Muza on Unsplash

See more from Benzinga

2020 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Follow this link:

Move Over Big Tech; This Week Is All About Blue Chips - Yahoo Finance

Combo of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai

Getty Images (L) | Reuters (C) | Getty Images (R)

Financial markets enter August registering an array of extremes and at something of a "Now what?" moment.

The Nasdaq and gold at or just about at record highs, Treasury yields scraping all-time lows and the U.S. Dollar index sliding to a two-year trough, just as the bulk of earnings season is through, a tougher seasonal period arrives, and some excesses start to surface in investor behavior.

Some can't resist calling this an "Everything Rally" floated by a flagrantly easy Fed and cheapening of the dollar, but the action is more nuanced than that on careful review. Here are few things we learned last month that shape the set-up for the rest of the summer and beyond:

The issue now is just how much more can be asked of this stock cohort at this stage. Apple gained 10% Friday after its results but Amazon failed to rise even 4% and sits below its July high. A faint hint that most of the stupendous business performance is largely in these stocks by now? The Nasdaq 100, too, has surrendered a couple percentage points of outperformance versus the firm but range-bound S&P 500 over the past few weeks.

This group owes investors nothing after its run, the stocks are near 20-year valuation highs and last week there were signs of capitulation buying by holdouts after the Big Four CEOs survived tough Congressional hearings and the glittering earnings hit the tape.

The underpinnings of the Big Tech strength remain - and likely will unless bond yields surge or an economic acceleration seems underway but it's unclear if their two-week cooldown was enough to refresh this group for another sustained advance.

In this way, the market continues to act as if big-money investors are not overcommitted to equities, meaning there is no quick-triggered selling that would turn routine pullbacks into self-reinforcing slides.

For sure, the breadth of the market has not always been impressive, and of course the economy has backslid in recent weeks with the lapse of enhanced unemployment payments, Covid-case surges and resulting consumer caution.

But Friday was a good example of how traders must remain aware of "upside risks." Reports that Democrats and the White House would keep talking about a new fiscal deal this weekend were joined by others saying Microsoft might buy TikTok from its Chinese owner and private-equity firms are looking to acquire Kansas City Southern.

Individually not big market drivers but if we're in a phase where railroad leveraged buyouts, 11-figure tech deals and another round of fiscal juice are in play at once, it's tough to lean too heavily to the bearish side.

All of which sets the market up for some tests.

August begins what is easily been the toughest two-month stretch of the calendar for stocks, with higher volatility and weaker returns, on average. Election years have a particular tendency to get erratic in August, as this historical composite chart from Nautilus Research shows:

Of course, seasonal factors speak to broad tendencies over many years, but don't dictate an individual year's action. A separate study by LPL Financial of years when all four months from April through July were up for S&P 500, as this year has been, show above-average returns for the rest of those years (with the glaring exception of 2018, when a September market peak led to a 20% decline).

There is some froth building around the edges of the market for sure: The zero-commission retail speculators stampeding into moribund imaging company Kodak last week on news of a government loan; Special Purpose Acquisition Vehicles new shell companies set up to buy something are proliferating fast. Mostly this is the routine boundary-testing seen in bull markets, but it can get out of hand if the market keeps rewarding hubris too easily.

Another test could come from overstretched inter-market relationships. The persistent, steep slide in the US dollar mostly against the euro has been associated with firmer risk appetites and the run in gold. The dollar is getting oversold and sentiment is quite negative, possibly setting up a bounce that could ding stock prices.

It makes sense to enter August alert to all these interactions and the implicit bets embedded in share prices. But they don't yet amount to a convincing case to bet boldly against a market that has spent four months turning the doubts of bears into dollars for the bulls.

Read more:

Investors got it right piling into Big Tech, but might need new catalysts to power stocks in August - CNBC

Last week, $5 trillion strode into the US Congress. That they did so virtually, through technology that some of them helped create, was perhaps an ironic coincidence. Googles Sundar Pichai, Amazons Jeff Bezos, Apples Tim Cook and Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg represented Big Tech, and their companies were worth a total of about $5 trillion, the size of Japans economy. While members of Congress were masked, the Tech Titans seemed to wear masks of contrition.

Just a few years back, these men (and they are almost always men) could do no wrong. They were the new idols, creators of new technologies and untold wealth. Their companies and campuses were the new wonders of the world, and it was the tools they were building that would enrich our lives and save our planet; even take us to other planets.

A few years later, while a large part of the adulation remains, their sheen is rapidly wearing off. Google is accused of monopolizing all of search globally, stifling competition as well as small merchants, and suffocating publishers. Amazon is seen as an apex predator, monopolizing e-commerce and driving small retailers into the ground. Apple makes most of the devices Americans use, and is a single, monopolistic gateway to the apps that power them. Facebook is perhaps the most reviledfor allegedly fuelling hate speech, ruining newspapers, swallowing startups that threaten it, and even swinging the US elections and the UK Brexit vote.

There are many reasons for this tech-lash. Monopoly power is one of them. The US antitrust laws were created more than a century ago to break the oil and steel monopolies Esso and US Steel. The basic idea of those laws was to keep producers from using their monopoly power to jack up consumer prices. This is where US regulators ran into a conceptual difficulty with tech giants. Their products were either free, or (in the case of Amazon) extremely cheap, and therefore presumably serving consumers well. The other reason for the backlash has been the use, or misuse, of datathe fact that many of these companies are making money off the free information we voluntarily give them. This data is sliced, diced, massaged and sold to advertisers for gobs of money, with the consumer getting nothing. This is the primarily business model of Google and Facebook, and its dangers were highlighted starkly by the Cambridge Analytica scandal; this firm had used the Facebook data of millions of Americans to influence the 2016 presidential polls. Then, there is also the onslaught of fake news, the amplification of hate speech, and the concentration of unimaginable wealth in the hands of a few. While the companies are still hugely admired, a citizen backlash has only just begun. And, predictably, politicians and regulators have started taking note.

The EU was first off the block with its General Data Protection Regulations, which prioritized consumer privacy. In the US, in response to a clamour to break Big Tech up, members of its antitrust subcommittee realized that while these firms might not raise user prices, their practices could lower the quality of products (on privacy, for example). Facebook and Twitter have been forced to hire thousands of people to weed out the hate spewed on their networks. Amazon is under scrutiny across the world, including India, for being anti-competitive to small traders. Facebook suicide", or getting off the network, has become common among people who do not want to be chased across the virtual world by marketers and spammers.

These companies started as forces for good, created by idealistic founders who wanted to change the world for the better. Google promised never to be evil", Zuckerberg wanted to connect people across the world, Jeff Bezos wanted to deliver stuff at low prices. Along the way, they grew big, and needed ever more money to fuel their ambitions. All of them went public, investors clamoured for stratospheric growth every quarter to maintain their insane valuations, and idealism gave way to capitalism. Creating cool technology took second place to ratcheting up the financial rewards for investors, employees and themselves, it seems.

I do believe, however, that these companies are smart enough to learn from this impasse and transform themselves. They do not have far to look. Just two decades ago, one of them was accused of monopoly, fought the battle, changed itself, and emerged ever stronger. It is still highly valued today, far better respected, and was not a part of the $5 trillion that beamed into the US Congress last week. That company is called Microsoft.

Jaspreet Bindra is the author of The Tech Whisperer, and co-founder of Unqbe

Subscribe to newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Original post:

Opinion | Behind the masks of contrition worn recently by Big Tech chiefs - Livemint

Representative David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island), the chairman of the subcommittee, shifted the conversation to the conspiracies about Covid-19 that flourish on Facebook, and he didnt mince words, insisting that the platform contains deadly contentthat is, content that leads the public to dangerous actions, whether its trying unsafe cures or resisting prudent measures like wearing a mask. But Zuckerbergs insistence that Facebook has a relatively good track record of fighting and taking down lots of false content as well as putting up authoritative information fails to placate users and legislators when it concerns a plague that has left 150,000 dead and counting, as opposed to, say, leaks of personal data.

To be fair, the major platforms have always insisted that there were two exceptions to their hands-off approach to the hate and misinformation that appear on their platforms: public health and democracy. Until now, they could assume that those third rails wouldnt be breached in the United States in such harmful and undeniable ways. Facebook, for example, has been credibly accused of aiding genocide in Myanmar, but that was on the other side of the globe; and Amazon and YouTube, as well as Facebook, have helped promote campaigns against vaccination of children, endangering young lives, but at nowhere near the scale of misery from Covid-19. Simply put, there is no moving on from this presidency or pandemic to the next scandal.

In January, Zuckerbergs close confidant and VP of augmented and virtual reality at Facebook, Andrew Bosworth, wrote a forthright take about his companys role in getting Trump into office. So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? Bosworth asked. I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didnt get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign Ive ever seen from any advertiser. Period.

Six months later, with a deadly virus spreading unabated in the United States and a president questioning whether to hold an election, I dont think Bosworth would again write those words, never mind in such an offhand way. If polls are to be believed, Trump is substantially more disliked, and in more profound ways, now than he was at the beginning of the year. But it is interesting to get a glimpse of Bosworths thought process. Citing the moral philosopher John Rawls, he asserts that the moral way to decide something is to remove yourself entirely from the specifics of any one person involved, and this reasoning prevents him from limiting the reach of publications who have earned their audience, as distasteful as their content may be to me and even to the moral philosophy I hold so dear.

He quickly added the familiar caveats: That doesnt mean there is no line. Things like incitement of violence, voter suppression, and more are things that same moral philosophy would safely allow me to rule out.

Accountability is coming for Big Tech. Not just because Congress had an impressive hearing, but because the confluence of crises now demands action, even by these companies own hands-off logic. There is no choice but to reclaim the unchecked power these platforms wield. This is about more than Facebook spreading fake cures and voter suppression, or YouTube sending its users down rabbit holes of conspiracy and hate, or Apple and Amazon becoming so central in how we get news and entertainment and how we conduct commerce. This is about how a nation protects its people.

Perhaps in better times we could assume the best of these platforms and be swayed by their promises to fix whatever problem crops up. But when our nation is tested as it is now, we cant accept band-aid fixes and assurances that they already have a way to do better next time.

Mike Tyson had a good way of explaining Silicon Valleys current inadequacy in the face of the crises theyre up against: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Photographs: Graeme Jennings/Getty Images; LMPC/Getty Images

More Great WIRED Stories

Continued here:

For Big Tech, Theres No Winning This Round - WIRED

On July 29th, the long-awaited Big Tech antitrust hearing from the House Judiciarys antitrust subcommittee was held. For several hours, four of the biggest figures in tech Apples Tim Cook, Amazons Jeff Bezos, Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, and Googles Sundar Pichai were grilled by lawmakers.

This week on The Vergecast, The Verges Nilay Patel, Makena Kelly, Adi Robertson, and Casey Newson dedicated an entire episode to the important moments from the six-hour hearing, the notable emails and internal documents made available from the investigation, and how effective the panel was in laying out a case for regulating big tech companies in the US.

The day after the hearing, all of those companies released their quarterly earnings. The Vergecast crew also discusses the difference in messaging from the companies resistance to claims of being a monopoly and to the profits they made during a pandemic and recession.

You can listen to all of that here or in your preferred podcast player.

Stories discussed this week:

Read the original:

Big Tech antitrust hearing: breaking down the most important moments - The Verge

It was the Wizard of Oz in digital format as the four titans of Big Tech testified via video before the House Antitrust Subcommittee. Just like in the movie, what the subcommittee saw was controlled by a force hidden from view. The wizard in this casethe reason these four companies are so powerfulis the math that takes our private information and turns it into their corporate asset.

The hearing was the next step in the subcommittees year-long investigation of Big Techs effect on a competitive market and the effectiveness of Americas antitrust laws. The witnesses, subcommittee chairman David Cicilline (D-RI) said, were gatekeepers to the economy[with] the power to pick winners and losers, shake down small businesses and enrich themselves while choking off competitors.

During nearly six hours of testimony the CEOs of Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet (Google) dealt with a litany of diverse topics. Republicans saw an opportunity to work the referees and complain about alleged bias by social media. The subcommittees Democratic majority, however, was clearly prepared. The CEOs were forced to defend practices as diverse as their relationship with China, their acquisitions of other companies, and the myth that they protect consumer privacy.

This was a hearing to explore antitrust policies, and as such, it focused on the effects of the companies market power. Left mostly unaddressedand remaining behind the curtainwas the source of that power. That source is the collection and hoarding of the digital data that fuels the software algorithms that deliver the companies services. It is the 21st century equivalent of Rockefellers 20th century monopoly over oil.

Except that the data asset is far more valuable than industrial assets such as oil. As a result, the monopolistic control of data is even more onerous than industrial monopolies such as Rockefellers. Unlike industrial assets such as oil, data is reusable. Data is also iterative, as its use in a product creates new data. Additionally, data is non-rivalrous, in that its use by one party does not preclude its use by another.

The internet platform barons assembled at the hearing are, as a result of the nature of the asset they monopolize, infinitely more powerful that Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan or the industrial barons of the early 20th century. It is all about the math that is hiding behind the curtain.

The math machinescomputer algorithmsbecome more valuable and more precise as they are fed more data. Whoever controls that data, therefore, controls the market. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, was able to take on the reigning social media service Myspace only 15 years ago, because the use of social media data to target advertising was in its infancy. Today, even if an startup had a better product, the new companys ability to sell advertising would be constrained by the amount of data Facebook collects from a user base of almost one-third of the people on the planet and the precision that data provides.

And the data that Big Tech holds in their computers is locked away behind the wizards curtain, unavailable to innovators and the potential of new competition.

But not all datathank goodnessis hoarded like Big Tech does. If scientific data were hidden away like Big Tech hoards consumer data, the COVID-19 crisis would be much worse. Sharing data and working collaboratively across an ecosystem has been a major reason why scientists have been able to ramp up vaccine efforts. Called Deep Tech, the open availability of data about coronavirus has allowed a combination of universities and startups to search for solutions. On January 7 China published the COVID genome; a month later, Moderna had the first candidate vaccine; by March 16 the first test dose had been administeredall because of access to the necessary data.

The same holds true for artificial intelligence (AI). While the Big Tech companies are developing their own AI algorithms, their fiduciary responsibilities focus the effort on the needs of the company and shareholders, not necessarily the expansion of knowledge. Yet, since AI is nothing more than algorithms sifting through vast amounts of data to reach a conclusion, the United States success in the international race to develop AI would be greatly aided if the vast amounts of data hoarded by Big Tech were shared with Little Tech companies pursuing their own innovative ideas.

Chairman Cicilline and his subcommittee are to be commended for their antitrust investigation and the important public hearing. The subcommittee has promised a report with recommendations in August. It will be an important step towards bringing antitrust law into the digital reality of the 21st century. It is not an end in-and-of-itself, however; it is also time for the federal government to pull back the curtain and investigate the abusive hoarding of the consumers personal information and its effect on a competitive market.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are general, unrestricted donors to the Brookings Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions posted in this piece are solely those of the author and not influenced by any donation.

Link:

Big Tech and antitrust: Pay attention to the math behind the curtain - Brookings Institution

The House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee hearing Wednesday established clearly that Big Tech will be regulated and held accountable. As noted by Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineFive takeaways from Big Tech's blowout earnings What factors will shape Big Tech regulation? Hillicon Valley: House panel grills tech CEOs during much anticipated antitrust hearing | TikTok to make code public as it pushes back against 'misinformation' | House Intel panel expands access to foreign disinformation evidence MORE (D-R.I.) while the names have changed from Rockefeller and Carnegie to Big Tech the story is the same. As Cicilline said, Big Tech platforms form the arteries of our economic activity and democracy and have abused their power as the railroads of the new economy. Regulation is imminent.

The hearings established common troubling patterns across Big Tech. There is abundant evidence that Big Tech companies are exploiting data and market power to act in ways that are harmful to competition, society and individuals. They monitor and control the competition under the guise of improving the product for which they have user consent, when in fact, their questionable business practices stifle competition, invade privacy, steal intellectual property (IP) and undermine democracy.

While the problem is obvious, the solution is not. There is a lot at stake. How should we think about regulation? Are there useful precedents? And what is unique about current digital platforms that should be considered? Fortunately, we have starting points on both fronts for regulators to consider.

Thefinancial services industry provides a good initial blueprintfor thinking about the regulation of digital platforms. Such regulation provides a few central tenets that apply to digital platforms. For starters, the operator of a marketplace cannot selectively reward or punish its participants at will or steal their intellectual property (IP). In contrast to financial marketplaces, Google operates both as a buyer and a seller in the ad marketplace, which it controls. Similarly, Amazon competes with its sellers, sometimes driving them out of business. The same is true of Apple, which uses differential pricing to thwart its competitors.

Secondly, financial institutions must know their customers (called KYC), and why they are paying you. Banks, brokers and asset managers must be able to demonstrate that their actions are in the best interests of customers. When asked by Rep. Lucy Kay McBath (D-Ga.) how Amazon knows whether its sellers information is correct, Bezos answer was we dont. Neither does Facebook, as long as it gets paid. As far as we know, Amazon could be supporting stolen goods and child labor exploitation without realizing it, as noted by McBath. Would we allow banks to turn a blind eye towards their customers?

These kinds of problems plague the Wild West digital platforms of today. Thus far, the pace of technology has outpaced our ability to control it. That must change.

But it is equally important to consider what is unique about digital platforms, especially the Big Tech platforms of today.

The first is the inherent tendency of digital platforms towards winner takeall outcomes, which leads to monopolies. It is therefore difficult to create competition. But the railroad analogy is appealing: Why not treat digital platforms like railroads and let innovation and growth occur along their rails? After all, the internet is a utility, freely available toeveryone. Why not other basic services in a digital economy?

Equally importantly, there is a unique twist that artificial intelligence Big Tech platforms create, namely, their ability for cross industry disruption due to the economies of scope they create. In an increasingly virtual world where only a few observe almost all of human activity as data in the physical and digital worlds, the knowledge acquired and its scope of application is staggering, and the incentive systems are rife for misuse. In addition, as noted by Rep. Mary Gay ScanlonMary Gay ScanlonWhat factors will shape Big Tech regulation? Hillicon Valley: House panel grills tech CEOs during much anticipated antitrust hearing | TikTok to make code public as it pushes back against 'misinformation' | House Intel panel expands access to foreign disinformation evidence Five takeaways as panel grills tech CEOs MORE (D-Pa.), their size enables them to eliminate entire industries by subsidizing massive losses via profits in their monopolies. To put their size in perspective, Facebooks market cap is roughly$15 million per employee compared to $200,000 per employee for Best Buyand similar physical economy companies. Industrial era companies ran into limits to growth naturally, whereas digital platforms have exactly the opposite propertytheir machines allow them toscale up theirsupply ondemand,virtually for free.

In effect, the Big Tech platforms have tremendous market power to enter entirely new industries like transportation and finance, while potentiallyeliminatingbanks,automanufacturers and eventransportation service providers. They have no traditional industry boundaries. What industry is Amazon in? How about Google? Or Apple? The very notion of industry has become obsolete. Regulation must recognize this shift in market structure when considering the meaning of competition in the digital economy.

Finally, given the inherent monopolistic nature of digital platforms, it makes sense to consider what parts of such platforms might be considered digital utilities that are regulated accordingly to promote equal access to these commodity services and encourage innovation. India, for example, has already adopted this position towards payments and authentication, which it considers digital utilities available to all at low prices, and the creation of data fiduciaries that enable control of data by their creators.

Utility providers operate by a strict set of standards and transparent procedures. If we all rely on a single search algorithm, for example, should we care if the operator of that algorithm changes its ranking criterion at will? How would we feel if someone rearranged the merchants on our streets every day according to what would maximize the revenues of our city, or favor some at the expense of others depending on the preferences of their operators? What risks do such capabilities impose on business and society? These questions will receive more scrutiny going forward.

I am encouraged that regulators have realized the threats by Big Tech to the economy, our political systems and individuals. As Cicilline said, quoting Louis Brandeis, in his closing remarks: We mayhave democracy, or we mayhave wealthconcentrated in thehandsof afew,but we can't have both.

VasantDharis a professor atNew York Universitys Stern School of Businessand the director of the PhD program at the Center for Data Science.

Read more from the original source:

What factors will shape Big Tech regulation? | TheHill - The Hill

The bill would make criminal offenses by individuals punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Thats up from four years under the existing law. Its also more time than the current federal maximum sentence of 10 years. Corporations could be fined up to $100 million, up from the current maximum New York state penalty of $1 million. The proposed changes would also allow class action lawsuits, which could lead to an increase in private antitrust litigation.

This proposed legislation comes just after federal lawmakers grilled Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google over their business practices as part of a federal antitrust investigation. Apple and Google are under investigation in the EU, and New York and California are reportedly helping the Federal Trade Commission investigate Amazon. Apple and Amazon are under investigation in Italy, as well.

While there seems to be growing concern about the concentrated power Big Tech companies have, dont expect New Yorks bill to bring about immediate change. Most likely, the Twenty-First Century Anti-Trust Act will be discussed when New Yorks senate returns in August. Even if it is passed eventually, a vote probably wont happen until next year.

Excerpt from:

New York State targets big tech with tougher antitrust bill - Engadget

TOPLINE

Congresss grilling of top Silicon Valley CEOs Wednesday on antitrust issues reflects the American publics broad distrust of big tech companies increasing powerbut polling released throughout 2020 shows that while Americans may be wary of big tech, theyre more conflicted when it comes to what action the government should take in response.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before the House Financial Services Committee on October 23, ... [+] 2019. (Photo by Aurora Samperio/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

72% of U.S. adults believe big tech companies have too much power and influence in politics, per a Pew Research survey conducted in June, while an Accountable Tech/GQR Research poll in July found 85% of respondents believe they have too much power in general.

A Morning Consult poll released in January found that 65% believe tech companies benefits to users arent worth the industrys becoming more powerful at the expense of smaller companiesbut a majority of those respondents still enjoy big tech products, using major social media and search tools and predominantly shopping online.

Americans who distrust big tech dont necessarily support government action: 69.8% of respondents to a July poll by the Center for Growth and Opportunity/YouGov said they somewhat or completely agree that tech companies are too big, but only 44.4% agree the government should break them up.

A Knight Foundation/Gallup poll conducted in December and released in March found 50% support government intervention to break up tech companies, while 49% oppose, and the Pew survey found only 47% support more government tech regulationdown from 51% in 2018.

88% of Knight/Gallup respondents said they do not trust social media platforms to make the right decisions about what users can post, but 55% still said the companies should be making those decisions anyway, rather than the government.

A July Morning Consult poll found only 46% of Americans trust Congress to best regulate big tech companies, as compared with 57% who trust the courts, 53% trusting federal agencies and 34% who trust the president.

A national survey by The Verge released in March found that 51% believe Google and YouTube should be broken up into two different companiesbut 66% dont have a problem with Facebook owning Instagram and WhatsApp.

CEOs of worlds most powerful tech companies on Wednesday defended themselves against lawmaker accusations that their companies have too much power and stifle smaller businesses, claiming that their practices are instead part of a thriving competitive economy and that their size is essential to their value. Just like the world needs small companies, it also needs large ones, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos argued in his opening statement to the House antitrust subcommittee, while Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Facebooks large size is an asset to its work to keep people safe on our platform, and to make sure were investing to fix our issues and get ahead of new risks.

Zuckerberg and Bezos, along with Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Apple CEO Tim Cook, appeared before the House antitrust subcommittee Wednesday, amid widespread scrutiny into the tech giants alleged anticompetitive practices. The companies are also facing antitrust investigations from the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general and the European Union. The antitrust struggles come amid broader distrust of big tech companies and their role in the coronavirus pandemic, racial justice protests and impending November election, as companies have struggled to respond to growing misinformation and address hate speech and extremist groups on their platforms.

Though Americans are increasingly suspicious of big tech companies, polls show that the coronavirus pandemic may be improving their standing in the eyes of Americans. A Harris poll released in April found that 38% of respondents view of the tech industry had become more positive over the course of the pandemic, while an April report by the National Research Group found a full 88% of Americans say the pandemic has given them a greater appreciation for technologys positive impact.

Mark Zuckerberg Is Even Less Popular Than Donald Trump, Poll Finds (Forbes)

The Verge Tech Survey 2020 (The Verge)

Techlash? America's Growing Concern With Major Technology Companies (Knight Foundation)

Most People Dont Like Giving Big Tech More Power, but They Rely on Its Services (Morning Consult)

Most Americans say social media companies have too much power, influence in politics (Pew Research Center)

See the rest here:

As Tech Giants Face Congress, Heres What Americans Actually Think Of Big Tech - Forbes

In his opening statements, the chairman of Wednesdays historic tech hearing argued that regulating techs most dominant players is vital in the midst of the ongoing pandemic that has driven even more of American life online.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, these corporations already stood out as titans in our economy, House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Chair David Cicilline said. In the wake of COVID-19, however, they are likely to emerge stronger and more powerful than ever before.

The argument that tech stands to benefit from the COVID-19 crisis is a smart one and a timely attack thats difficult to dispute. While many major companies in other industries are struggling, grappling with layoffs or filing for bankruptcy, many of techs largest companies stand to emerge from the economic storm largely unscathed if not better off.

In his own opening remarks, ranking member Jim Sensenbrenner also argued that because Americans are relying more on online companies than ever before, techs power must be examined in light of the pandemic.

That responsibility comes with increased scrutiny of your dominance in the market, Sensenbrenner said.

Its not the first warning about tech companies amassing more power in the throes of the coronavirus crisis. A handful of members of Congress have called attention to mergers planned during the pandemic, citing concerns about adequate scrutiny for deals that could make techs already huge companies even larger and more dominant.

In April, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) proposed the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act, which would freeze mergers during the crisis, calling out big tech specifically. The LEAST we should do is halt big mergers during COVID to slow the consolidation of sectors, Ocasio-Cortez said.

Cicilline also previously called for a freeze on mega-mergers and pushed for such a ban to be included in the economic stimulus package passed by Congress.

As hard as it is to believe, it is possible that our economy will emerge from this crisis even more concentrated and consolidated than before, Cicilline said. As American families shift more of their work, shopping and communication online, these giants stand to profit.

See original here:

Lawmakers argue that big tech stands to benefit from the pandemic and must be regulated - TechCrunch

SUBSCRIBE TO THE FEDERALIST RADIO HOUR HERE.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) joined host Ben Domenech to discuss the danger of big tech censorship for the American public.Rep. Bucks new book, Capitol Freedom: Restoring American Greatness, is out now.

Many Republicans argue all private companies ought to remain unfettered by government intervention, but Buck argues that big tech companies such as Google dont use the extreme level of power they wield over free speech fairly. He debunked the idea that theres no relationship between privacy and size, saying that if these companies didnt have a monopoly on free speech, they couldnt get away with their actions.

There are 100 if not thousands of news sources that we can get information from and as we receive that information were able to filter it understanding the source. Thats not true when you go to google and you search for a particular item, the congressman said. Youre gonna find Don Jr. on page 23 of your Google search.

Listen Here:

Allison Schuster is an intern at The Federalist and is also a rising senior at Hillsdale College working toward a degree in politics and journalism. Follow her on Twitter @AllisonShoeStor.

Read more:

Rep. Ken Buck On Big Spending, Big Tech, And Progressive Attacks On Personal Freedom - The Federalist

He hit No. 1 on Institutional Investor's all-star analyst list for software 17 times in a row.

Now as an investment banker, Rick Sherlund is a tech power player who believes the group's record run is in the early innings.

During Tuesday's exclusive interview on CNBC"s "Trading Nation," he delivered a bullish case for tech, emphasizing demand for cutting-edge software as the U.S. battles the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

"Software is not only eating the world, it's leading the market higher," said the Bank of America Merrill Lynch vice chairman of technology investment banking. "Covid has accelerated the momentum and the urgency behind digital transformation."

Big Tech has been crushing records on Wall Street. On Tuesday, the tech-heavy Nasdaq closed at its 30th all-time high so far this year. It's now up almost 22% in 2020, while the broader S&P 500has risen 2%.

Plus,the Nasdaq has soared 65% since the March 23 low.

"The sector offers phenomenal growth, and right now, the Street is valuing that growth because you can't find growth elsewhere," Sherlund said.

He suggests the record run is justified based on long-term potential.

"Software used to be the tail of the dog, and now it's become the head of the dog," he said. "People use this to not only work at home, but shop at home, to learn at home, to play, to entertain at home [and] to socialize. So, software is really becoming the business."

He also downplays comparisons with the 2000 tech bubble.

"We are nowhere near those kinds of levels, and we have good business models now," said Sherlund. "I took a look recently at a number of dot-com names where they were valued back then and where they are today. We are nowhere near those kinds of valuation levels."

However, Sherlund acknowledges the rally could see some temporary burnout due to the nature of the economic recovery.

"It's likely to be led by the cyclical sectors that have lagged behind, and that's going to require a vaccine," he added. "But the growth rates that we see in the sector are just getting started."

According to Sherlund, the softness should be temporary, and tech IPOs will heat up in 2021.

"We are seeing a new generation of technology emerging over the horizon, a new generation of visionary leaders. It's well funded and guided by experienced VC board members." said Sherlund. "There's an awful lot to be done in the space."

He expects innovation to overshadow risks including the presidential election and U.S.-China trade tensions.

"Companies are probably going to go out in an earlier stage," Sherlund said. "I have companies now that are doing about $100 million [in revenues] saying 'can we hit the window next year?'"

Disclaimer

See the article here:

Tech power player Rick Sherlund: 'Software is not only eating the world, it's leading the market higher' - CNBC

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., says despite the big tech CEOs claiming they don't censor conservative voices online, he continues to see liberal viewpoints promoted on their sites and he believes that impacts elections.

Its morning in America and Silicon Valleys time of reckoning has come.

For years, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple have benefited from Americas free-market system to grow into four of the biggest power players in the global economy.

REP. KEN BUCK CALLS OUT GOOGLE'S CHINA CONNECTIONS FOLLOWING BIG TECH CEO HEARING ON CAPITOL HILL

These companies have connected people to information and products in a way that previous generations could have only imaginedbut Big Techs darlings have also used their monopolistic advantage to corner the market and stifle competition.

Its time they faced the music.

Congress cant sit idly by as Big Tech uses its outsized influence to unfairly shut companies out of the marketplace, cozies up to communist China, and silences conservative voices.

Let me be clear big is not necessarily bad. In fact, big is often a force for good.

However, Congress cant sit idly by as Big Tech uses its outsized influence to unfairly shut companies out of the marketplace, cozies up to communist China, and silences conservative voices.

President Trump also jumped into the fray, tweeting that Congress needs to bring fairness to Big Tech.

After a year of investigating Big Techs anti-competitive practices, I agree with President Trump.

HAWLEY BLASTS BIG TECH FOR 'CENSORING' CHRISTIAN WORSHIP LEADER

The House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommitteehas reviewed more than 1.3 million documents and heard from hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses that have been negatively impacted by Big Techs harmful business practices.

After reviewing all this evidence, its clear that we cant allow the status quo to continue.

In fact, two examples from the subcommittees field hearing in Boulder, Coloradothis January, show just how far Big Tech will go to maintain their dominance.

TWITTER LIMITS DONALD TRUMP JR'S ACCOUNT FEATURES AFTER HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE TWEET

The CEO and inventor of PopSockets, the company that makes those useful devices to help you grip your phone, told the subcommittee how Amazon allowed thousands of counterfeit products to appear alongside PopSockets product and failed to remedy these problems until the company agreed to a nearly $2 million marketing deal with Amazon.

Genius Media Group Inc., a company specializing in detecting song lyrics, also told the subcommittee how it caught Google stealing its product red-handed.

BIG TECH CEOS DIVIDED ON CHINA TECHNOLOGY THEFT

In fact, when Genius suspected this corporate theft was occurring, the company placed a digital watermark into its lyrics algorithm that spelled out red-handed in Morse Code.

When Googles lyric boxes contained the watermark in 43 percent of tested songs, it proved that the search behemoth was stealing what it couldnt or didnt want to produce itself.

I raised these examples during Wednesdays House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee hearing to help the American people understand the harm these tech giants are inflicting on startup businesses.

These brazen and anti-competitive moves were only possible because Big Tech holds a monopolistic advantage in the marketplace. Theres no other way an American company could get away with a move straight from the Chinese Communist Partys corporate espionage playbook.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

These arent the only values some of Silicon Valleys biggest players share with China though the same communist nation that imprisons Uighur Muslims, exploits slave labor, suppresses the freedom of Hong Kongs residents, and lied to the world about COVID-19.

The CEOs answers were telling they refused to distance themselves from China in an effort to stay in President Xi Jinpings good graces.

It was like pulling teeth to get all four CEOs to state on the record that their companies do not and will never use slave labor to manufacture or sell their products.

This shouldnt even be a question for companies that claim they stand for freedom and equality.

The United States is the greatest country on Earth because we have embraced capitalism as an instrument for freedom.

The American dream is built squarely upon the central tenet of capitalism freedom.

Unfortunately, Big Tech has abused that freedom and harmed countless Americans in the process.

Its clear that Congress needs to reexamine how it treats Silicon Valley to ensure these companies can no longer stifle competition and harm the next generation of American greatness.

Republican Ken Buck represents Colorado's 4th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Heis a member of the House Judiciary Committee and theHouse Foreign Affairs Committee.

READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS BY CLICKING HERE

See more here:

Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and the Big Tech reckoning: Rep. Ken Buck - Fox Business

Following last week's waterfall of quarterly tech reports, the earnings season continues this week with blue chips leading the way, one being Walt Disney Co(NYSE: DIS) reporting later today. But we also see the earnings of pioneers such as Roku Inc(NASDAQ: ROKU), Nikola (NASDAQ: NKLA) and newly public companies such as Virgin Galactic (NYSE: SPCE), Uber Technologies Inc.(NYSE: UBER) and Beyond Meat (NASDAQ: BYND).

Nikola Corporation, the maker of battery-electric and hydrogen powered vehicles will report its first quarter since its June listing. Despite not having sold a single vehicle yet, its company's market capitalization already exceeded $10.8 billion last Friday.

The Clorox Company (NYSE: CLX) reported Monday and posted the highest sales growth the company has seen in its modern history. With a 24% increase in organic sales last quarter and a 10% increase in organic sales in its latest fiscal year, it followed its peer personal care companies including Kimberly-Clark Corporation (NYSE: KMB), Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE: CL) and The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE: PG) that already reported strong results as home goods and personal health-care products are still enjoying a high level of demand.

Troubled travel companies crushed by the pandemic are also set to report, including Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NYSE: NCLH) and Wynn Resorts Limited (NASDAQ: WYNN). Just like airlines, these companies struggled to readjust their operations and slash costs as quickly as possible to be able to survive the severe reduction in demand. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc (NYSE: HLT) and TripAdvisor Inc (NASDAQ: TRIP) are also set for a dismal performance as quarantine and travel restrictions are likely to have significantly impacted their top lines.

Pharmaceutical companies rank highly on our list these days and a few important players are also set to report this week. Regeneron Pharmaceutical (NASDAQ: REGN) just revealed it signed a $450 million contract with the U.S. government for its anti-coronavirus cocktail.Mylan Inc (NASDAQ: MYL) is a stock with a strong history of beating estimates and as it recently rolled out the branding for its giant generics combo that is being developed with Pfizer Inc (NYSE: PFE), it seems well-positioned to continue that trend. Although their merger is not official yet, it was approved by its shareholders on June 30th. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY), a biopharmaceutical giant, is expected to report a year-over-year increase in earnings on higher revenues for its quarter that ended in June.

On Thursday, we also have some very interesting players to look forward to such as Datadog Inc (NASDAQ: DDOG). For the quarter, the company expects to report a break-even at the very least, with revenues in the range between $134 million and $136 million. Management warned that coronavirus-led disruptions are expected to have hurt net retention rate and new customer additions as well as caused delays in completing deals. But Datadog's potential remains intact in any scenario. Moreover, its growing international presence is likely to have benefited its performance during the quarter.

We are far from being out of the woods, but each week we are getting closer to leaving the pandemic and the resulting economic crisis behind us. This week will also provide us with significant insights on how to live in a COVID-19 reality that has turned our world upside down.

This article is not a press release and is contributed by a verified independent journalist for IAMNewswire. It should not be construed as investment advice at any time please read the full disclosure. IAM Newswire does not hold any position in the mentioned companies. Press Releases If you are looking for full Press release distribution contact: press@iamnewswire.com Contributors IAM Newswire accepts pitches. If you're interested in becoming an IAM journalist contact: contributors@iamnewswire.com

The post Last Week Was About Big Tech, This Week Is About Bluechips appeared first on IAM Newswire.

Photo by Carlos Muza on Unsplash

Read the original post:

Move Over Big Tech; This Week Is All About Blue Chips - Benzinga

The heads of Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon appeared before angry lawmakers Wednesday as Congress prepares to weigh new anti-monopoly regulations, including possibly breaking them up. Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg turned to a familiar argument, saying that breaking up the big tech companies would hurt U.S. competitiveness against China in developing new technologies and Americas ability to curb Chinese influence globally.

So are U.S. tech giants an asset to the U.S. in its competition with China or a hindrance?

Google CEO Sundar Pichai answered several questions about his companys loyalty to the United States by recounting its expanding work with the Defense Department. Ever more, he attempted to cast Google as an engine of U.S. innovation.

Our engineers are helping America remain a global leader in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, self driving cars and quantum computing, he said.

Zuckerberg contrasted between what he described as Facebooks American values and ideas with those of China. China is building its own version of the internet focused on very different ideas, and they are exporting their vision to other countries, he said in his prepared testimony.

He is not alone in this view. Daniel Castro, director of the Center for Data Innovation at the libertarian-leaning Internet Technology and Innovation Foundation, told Defense One, Breaking up U.S. tech firms would undercut American innovation. At a time when Chinese companies are growing more dominant in the global digital economy, U.S. policymakers should not hamstring successful tech companies.

Eric Schmidt, Googles former CEO who now chairs the Defense Innovation Board, has made similar statements, telling the Telegraph in May, Chinese companies are growing faster, they have higher valuations, and they have more users than their non-Chinese counterparts...Its very important to understand that there is a global competition around technology innovation, and China is a significant player and likely to remain so.

But not everyone agrees. David Segal, co-founder of the left-leaning group Demand Progress, took a categorically different view, telling Defense One, Far from stifling innovation, antitrust enforcement is necessary in order to enable it. He pointed to what he described as kill zones or areas of technology development that are too close to the products that the giants produce to attract venture capital.

Legal scholar Ganesh Sitaraman argues that conflating big tech with American innovation is part of the problem. Big tech, he says, is too intricately intertwined with China to be purely American.

The claim that big American tech companies are somehow an alternative to Chinese dominanceor, in the more extreme form, that they are competing with China on behalf of the United Statesis largely backwards he argues, in a January article for the Knight First Amendment Institute. Big techs integration with China thus supports the rise and export of digital authoritarianism; deepens economic dependence that can be used as leverage against the United States in future geopolitical moments; forces companies to self-censor and contort their preferences to serve Chinese censors and officials.

Lawmakers of both parties love to hate on big tech and its poster-child representatives, like those summoned to Wednesdays hearing. Conservatives routinely claim that Google is censoring their speech, a line they returned to repeatedly on Wednesday. Liberals argue that Facebook doesnt do a good enough job of calling out misinformation, especially if it might anger conservatives. Some observers worry that all of those resentments get in the way of a functional discussion about whether or not the companies are too big.

Im not confident that in the current environment you would see constructive solutions put forward that are not based on political retaliation, rather than a principled approach, said Mieke Eoyang, vice president for national security at think tank Third Way.

There is ample reason for lawmakers to be suspicious of how the big tech interacts with the Chinese government. A May report from London-based research firm Top10VPN shows that Amazon provides web services to Chinese companies on a Commerce Department sanctioned Entity list. Google has an AI research effort in China.

Facebook, which is effectively banned in the country, is arguably the least reliant on the Chinese market. Hong Kong-based TikTok is a major competitor to Facebook-owned Instagram. But that doesnt tell the whole story. Facebook is such a large gamer marketplace, it still makes money off of China from companies like Tencent that need Facebook's users to play their games.

From the Pentagons perspective, American tech giants do offer a unique technological resource, one that does produce innovation and that arguably would not exist if they were broken up. Consider the Pentagons JEDI cloud program. Smaller cloud providers complained that the programs requirements were tilted toward Amazon, the only company that many believed could meet them. Part of the reason that the JEDI contract came down to a race between Microsoft and Amazon (after Google pulled out) is because those are the companies with the largest cloud offerings, able to provide the highest level of security. It was only after visiting them that former Defense Secretary James Mattis realized that what Americans private big tech firms were doing with cloud computing was decades ahead of what the government was doing with smaller, patchwork capabilities. He also realized that cloud computing at enterprise scale was essential to real innovation in AI.

The size of that cloud capability and the amount of data available plays a big role in a companys ability to develop next-generation AI products. Googles compute power, and access to a massive dataset of online video footage via YouTube, was vital to the development of deep learning technologies. Facebooks compute power and its access to billions of biometric facial records pictures of faces allowed it to createunique facial recognition technology to rival the human brain.

These companies developed the worlds largest compute capabilities in order to become the worlds largest companies. Busting them up could eliminate something that doesnt exist anywhere else and actually is a driver for innovation, one that arguably requires more regulation and oversight but also that cant be replicated at a smaller scale.

The unique resource of big tech firms is what Congress is consideringin the context of these companies overall effects on the market, individuals, and tangled U.S. relations with China. How to do that? The answer is carefully and case by case. While Republicans and Democrats love to vilify big tech, these companies are very different from one another, even if they do have anti-competitive practices.

I think these companies are all differently situated based on their business models. So when it comes to discussions around breaking them up, the implications are all different, said Eoyang, as are the unintended consequences of doing so.

Read this article:

Busting Up Big Tech is Popular, But Here's what the US May Lose - Defense One