Category Archives: Big Tech

Big Tech has been in the news and on our minds as this crazy year 2020 winds toward an end. While the election has resulted in divided government, unlikely to have the majorities needed for sweeping reforms in any area, there is a growing consensus the hi-tech giants are getting too big. Congress is starting to look at the giant tech firms through the lens of anti-trust legislation, while regulators, including the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are considering similar suits and actions.

A potential breakup or at least an attempt at one is the only dark spot for what is otherwise one of the markets success stories in a generally hard year. The FAANG stocks Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google have made huge appreciation gains. If Big Tech doesnt seem worried by potential regulatory crackdowns, its in part because of deep pockets available to defend the turf.

No matter what happens, one thing is certain: Big Tech will continue to impact the industry, the news, and our social culture and Wall Streets analysts have been taking note.

Using TipRanks database, we pinpointed three FAANG stocks that have received enough support from Wall Street analysts to earn a Moderate or Strong Buy consensus rating. Let's take a closer look.

Amazon (AMZN)

Currently the third-largest publicly traded company on Wall Street, valued at $1.65 trillion, Amazon boasts a history of rebounding from tough times. The company survived the dot.com bubble burst of the late 90s, but by the beginning of 2001 the shares were trading at just $13.88. Since then, Amazon has seen tremendous growth; $1000 invested in AMZN in 2001 would be worth over $228,000 today.

Amazons strength through the corona crisis and the associated social and economic lockdown policies has been obvious. As an online retailer, delivering an enormous range of products from books to clothes to batteries to canned alligator tail meat (yes, really, go check!), Amazon was quick to take advantage of the imposed decline in brick-and-mortar storefronts. The companys fast delivery, competitive pricing, and endless inventory cemented its position as the king of modern retail.

Story continues

The quarterly results show the story. Quarterly revenue and earnings took a hit between 4Q19 and 1Q20, at the start of the pandemic, but quickly rebounded. Revenues hit $96.14 billion in Q3, beating the estimates and growing 37% year-over-year. Third quarter EPS came in at $12.37, a record, and 66% higher than forecast. Its important to note that Amazon recorded this growth despite a 57% yoy increase in delivery costs.

Cowen analyst John Blackledge, rated 5-stars by TipRanks, paints a picture of continued growth through multiple channels for Amazon, both next year and for several years after.

Amazon has several drivers that should yield robust global revenue growth with rising margins the next several years, namely (i) further B2C eCommerce market share gains in large retail verticals; (ii) emerging eCommerce verticals like B2B; (iii) significant opportunity in existing and newer Intl markets like India, Mexico, and Australia; (iv) AWS should enjoy years of secular tailwinds, driving revenue CAGR of ~24% 21-26E as workloads migrate to the Cloud; and (v) AMZN Advertising, while still nascent, will drive both revenue growth and margin opportunity, Blackledge opined.

In line with this bullish thesis, Blackledge rates AMZN an Outperform (i.e. Buy), and his price target of $4,350 implies a one-year upside of ~32%. (To watch Blackledges track record, click here)

The Strong Buy analyst consensus rating on Amazon is almost unanimous of 37 recent reviews, 36 say Buy, swamping the lone Hold. The shares are priced at $3,283.96, and the average price target $3,825.60 suggests the stock has room for 16.5% growth in 2021. (See AMZN stock analysis on TipRanks)

Facebook (FB)

Mark Zuckerbergs social media creation turned the internet upside down and forever changed the way we interact online both socially and, more recently, through commerce. The tracking of our online habits, and the application of that information in marketing and advertising, has become the subject of Congressional inquiries, regulatory interest, the worries of privacy advocates and the foundation of multi-billion-dollar fortunes. The company today is worth over $780 billion.

Of the three FAANG stocks on this list, Facebook has seen the lowest gain trajectory in 2020, with shares appreciating 35% for the year. This compares unfavorably to the NASDAQs 44% year-to-date gain.

Facebook faces at least two major headwinds, which have grown stronger in recent months and weeks. The company is accused of censoring information during the 2020 election season and campaign, and its ownership of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger is attracting unwanted attention from antitrust regulators. Both Congress and the Federal Trade Commission are starting to investigate the latter issue.

Even with the headwinds, Facebook has leveraged its dominance in the social media sphere to increase ad revenues. The top line for Q3, $21.5 billion, was up 22% year-over-year, and beat the forecast by 8.5%. The financial gains outpaced the growth in daily active users, which was 12% for the quarter; the total number hit 1.82 billion.

While Facebook has a more complex story than some of the other Big Tech firms, its still a compelling investment tale -- at least according to Guggenheim analyst Michael Morris.

Over the longer-term, we see several incremental opportunities within messaging advertising and publishers on-platform activity that is not reflected in consensus revenue expectations [...] Over time Facebook plans to complete its rollout of WhatsApp messaging links within IG/FB Shops for direct communications with business, which we see as particularly relevant for local, service-based businesses. For major publishers, Facebook currently provides revenue-share opportunities for major outlets on its News tab to drive additional engagement. We view such channels as an incremental longer-term opportunity for niche, audience-based (i.e., gaming, home dcor) marketing and related monetization for Facebook," Morris wrote.

Morris complements this with a Buy rating and a $365 price target that indicates a 36% upside potential for the coming 12 months. (To watch Morris track record, click here)

Facebook has also earned a Strong Buy rating from the analyst consensus, with 33 Buys, 2 Holds, a 1 Sell set in recent weeks. The stock is currently selling for $277, and its $321.06 average price target suggests a 16% upside from that level. (See FB stock analysis on TipRanks)

Apple (AAPL)

Last up, Apple, has become one of the worlds iconic brands. Its bitten-apple logo instantly recognizable worldwide. The iPhone ushered in the era of handheld smart devices, and the iPad and iMac product lines continue to attract a loyal user base. The company has continued to introduce popular products in recent years, such as the Apple Watch, the iPod earbuds, and is even researching an entry into the electric vehicle market.

These varied moves in established products and cutting-edge tech are fitting for the worlds most valuable company. With its $2.3 trillion market cap, Apple is larger than some countries; at the start of this year, Apples market cap was over 6% of the worlds total GDP.

Heading toward the end of the year, Apple is rebounding from a slightly disappointing fiscal Q4 report. The company reported $64.7 billion for the quarter, the best of the 2020 calendar year but slightly below expectations as iPhone sales failed to meet goals. Since then, however, the iPhone 12 has been released, and sales are surging. The company has announced in recent weeks that it plans to increase device production by 20% to 30% to meet increased demand for the iPhone line. iPhone 12 models lead the way, but demand is also strong for the older iPhone 11 and iPhone SE. In gross numbers, Apple expects to build 230 million units, or about one-fourth of its total installed user base.

Covering Apple for Wedbush, 5-star analyst Daniel Ives wrote, "Our recent Asia checks continue to be bullish around iPhone 12 demand both domestically and in China. In the US we are seeing 'a clear tick up' for demand around the iPhone 12 Pro versions with the 6.1-inch model the star of the show For the key China region, demand remains very healthy with strong pent-up demand for upgrades heading into holiday season for this latest iPhone 12 5G, which we would characterize as the strongest product cycle for Cook & Co. thus far since iPhone 6 in 2014.

Accordingly, Ives rates Apple shares an Outperform (i.e. Buy), and his $160 price target implies a 17% upside on the one-year time frame. (To watch Ives track record, click here)

Oddly, Apple is the one stock on this list which does not have a Strong Buy rating. The 30 recent reviews break down to 23 Buys, 6 Holds, and 1 Sell, making the consensus view a Moderate Buy. The average price target is $131.88, and recent share appreciation has pushed the trading price to $136.69, just above the target. (See AAPL stock analysis on TipRanks)

To find good ideas for tech stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

More here:

What These 3 FAANG Stocks Have in Store for 2021? Analysts Weigh In - Yahoo Finance

With size comes responsibility, Margrethe Vestager, the European Commissioner for competition and a redoubtable nemesis of Big Tech in Brussels, announced on December 15, as the European Union issued two draft digital-services laws that could launch an overarching supervisory apparatus covering tech companies.

The laws could potentially render Big Tech liable to face multibillion-dollar fines in Europe and even the prospect of being broken up, if they failed to comply with the sweeping new regulations.

Around the same time in the United States, the federal government initiated antitrust cases against Google and Facebook, and a large number of US states collectively launched action on the two companies and others for a range of alleged infractions.

The seemingly concerted onslaught from regulators and administrators on both sides of the Atlantic is seen as a culmination of several mini-steps over the years to curb the growing influence of Big Tech, but is now seen as marking a decisive shift in competition policy governing the sector.

There are two laws the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act.

The Digital Services Act is intended to create a single set of rules for the EU to keep users safe online, protect their freedom of expression, and help hold tech companies to account. An innovative idea is to introduce a sliding scale, under which tech majors, the larger and more influential they are, need to take on bigger obligations.

They could also face annual scrutiny of their dealings with illegal and harmful content under new rules of the European Commission, the EUs top policy making body. Fresh restrictions are also likely to supervise their use of customers data, and to prevent the firms from promoting their own services above those of competitors in search results and app stores.

Large fines up to 6 per cent of a companys annual turnover and break-ups are threatened for non-compliance. This fine, if levied on Facebook, would amount to over $3 billion. Also, recurrent infringers could be made to divest certain businesses, where no other equally effective alternative measure is available to ensure compliance.

The second law, Digital Markets Act, focuses on the regulation of gatekeepers, including the operators of search engines, social networks, chat apps, cloud computing services, and operating systems. This could cover Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.

Last week, Texas and nine other states sued Google, accusing it of working with Facebook in an unlawful manner that violated antitrust law to boost its already-dominant online advertising business. The states have asked that Google, which controls a third of the global online advertising industry, compensate them for damages, and sought structural relief which could potentially force the company to divest some of its assets.

The Texas lawsuit is the second major complaint from regulators against Google and the fourth in a series of federal and state legal suits aimed at controlling alleged infractions by Big Tech platforms. Google has called the Texas lawsuit meritless.

According to analysts, the US broadly seeks punitive action for infractions of the past, whereas the action by the EU has a wider scope, and is clearly forward-looking.

Vestager described the two laws as milestones in our journey to make Europe fit for the digital age We need to make rules that put order into chaos. The EUs Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has said that the laws had been designed to be applied very quickly once they came into effect. But it will be some time before the new regulations come on stream.

Both the proposed EU laws still need to undergo a consultation process and can only then be passed by European lawmakers, a process that could take years. The UK regulator Competition and Markets Authority simultaneously announced its own plans to place limits on the tech majors this month. In any case, the EU laws would only come into force only after the Brexit transition period has ended.

In the US, chances of new laws being brought in are slim, given that Congress could well stay gridlocked. Most experts believe the impetus for sweeping action on Big Tech is far lower in the US than in the EU, given that almost all of the firms m American.

Also, there is an increasing view within policy circles in Washington in recent months that a dominant US tech sector is a strategic advantage in the slugfest with China. This view, according to some, is now overshadowing the previous bipartisan antagonism against Big Techs control of digital commerce and its ability to manipulate what users read or watch.

There is also a difference being made out in the actions, depending on the company in question. For instance, the antitrust case against Google is being seen as having greater chance of succeeding, given that the alleged infringement relates to some $10 billion in annual payments made by the Alphabet Inc company to Apple and other device manufacturing companies to ensure that its services got prominence on device screens. The charges are seen to have the potential to stick.

The case against Facebook is less potent: that it illegally acquired WhatsApp and Instagram to thwart competition. But Facebook had sought regulatory clearances for both acquisitions, and the two firms were small when they were bought. In 2012, when Facebook offered $1 billion for Instagram, the latter had only 25 million users and practically no revenue stream. Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion, when the latter was already the mobile messaging leader, but revenue monetisation was still a work-in-progress.

Also, antitrust action takes years. Microsofts antitrust case commenced in 1998, and reached a resolution only in 2004. The last time that Google faced legal action for allegedly abusing its dominance in the search market was nearly a decade ago, when the US competition regulator Federal Trade Commission, in 2011, acted on a complaint filed by a Washington-based nonprofit, Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The markets have shrugged off the impact of the regulatory tightening. Share prices of the so-called FAANG companies Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google surged by over 45 per cent in 2020, on top of a 75 per cent surge in the last three years.

What is clear is that the new rules in the EU could force tech companies to revamp some of their practices across geographies, thereby potentially impacting more than the EUs 27 countries and 450 million people. There could be a ripple effect, at least in the long term.

Already, in India, there is increasing regulatory scrutiny of these firms.

* In November, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiated an investigation into alleged abuse of dominant position by the company to promote its payments app, Google Pay the third major antitrust probe ordered by the regulator against the company.

* Earlier in October, the CCI had received reports of Google abusing its dominant position in the Android-television market by creating barriers for companies that wanted to use or modify its Android operating systems for their smart TVs.

* And in June 2019, the CCI had said that Google had abused its dominant position in the domestic smartphone market by reducing the ability of original equipment and mobile phone markers to opt for alternate versions of its Android mobile operating system. It had then asked for a detailed investigation.

* In 2018, CCI had launched a probe and fined Google Rs 136 crore for search bias and giving undue space to its flights option on its search homepage, over and above other rivals in the market. The regulators order was, however, stayed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, where the case is being heard.

Read this article:

Explained: Targeting Big Tech in US, EU - The Indian Express

Hot on the heels of an announced antitrust case against Facebook, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is expanding its investigations into the business dealings of Big Tech. Nine of the industrys biggest names have been asked to provide the agency with information about their data practices as part of a wide ranging study.

The FTC is honing in on how the Big Tech companies handle user data, particularly the inner workings of the secretive algorithms that promote content to individual users and decide which ads to show based on collected personal information.

The FTC is authorized to ask for this information under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which allows it to create special reports about the impact of technologies and business practices on consumers based on access to corporate information that is not generally available to the public. In this case, the FTC is taking a look at some of the most deeply-held secrets of the Big Tech companies: the algorithms that underpin their systems of automized personalization, collecting user data to determine what content is most likely to engage users and what ads they are most likely to respond to.

The FTC is peering into the data practices of nine Big Tech companies: Amazon, ByteDance, Discord, Facebook, Reddit, Snap, Twitter, WhatsApp and YouTube. All of the companies are required by law to turn over the requested information and have 45 days to do so. Many were already facing legal issues prior to this announcement. Facebook, Google parent Alphabet and Amazon are already under a separate Section 6(b) study that is examining its mergers and acquisitions dating back to 2010. That study continues, but has already informed a separate lawsuit brought by the FTC (along with 48 states and territories) that seeks to undo Facebooks acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. Amazon has been under an FTC antitrust probe since 2019, ByteDances TikTok has faced countless legal challenges over assumed connections to the Chinese government, and Twitter has been at the center of an ugly public battle over Section 230 speech protections.

The FTC commissioners voted 4-1 to undergo the study of Big Techs data practices. The commissioners that voted in favor issued the following statement: The FTC wants to understand how business models influence what Americans hear and see, with whom they talk, and what information they share And the FTC wants to better understand the financial incentives of social media and video streaming services. Some of the companies under investigation issued press releases indicating that they were ready to cooperate, while others have remained silent thus far.

The FTC will be examining some of the most closely-held trade secrets of the Big Tech companies as it explores their data practices, and it will be interesting to see what of that filters through to the public when the report is finalized.

Facebook and Google have the farthest-reaching personal data collection operations of the group, with ad networks that span practically the entire internet along with a great deal of ad-supported mobile apps. Their data practices include building profiles on everyone that visits sites that have Facebook or Google components installed, even if they are not logged into an account or making themselves personally identifiable in any way; the ad networks can at minimum track browsing history and location across multiple sites to glean some idea of what ads anonymous users will want to see.

But all of the named sites have internal algorithms that determine what content should be promoted to each user, a topic that has become highly politicized as of late as sites like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit are peppered with charges of ideological bias in their data practices, including promotion of stories that are in their own business interest.

FTC is taking a look at some of the most deeply-held secrets of the #BigTech companies: the algorithms that underpin their systems of automized personalization. #privacy #respectdataClick to Tweet

In addition to concerns about exactly how much personal information is being vacuumed up by the data practices of these sites (and where it is ultimately winding up), there has also been vigorous debate about the merits of continued Section 230 protection for the Big Tech companies. Attached to the 1996 Communications Decency Act, Section 230 gives internet platforms a legal shield from the content posted by users. However, that status has typically been predicated on the site or service being viewed as a relatively neutral platform rather than as a political actor actively removing or suppressing otherwise legal user-generated content for ideological reasons. The removal of Section 230 could make websites legally liable for content posted by users, and there is broad speculation that it would bring about the end of many ad-supported free services. Most of the opposition to Section 230 terms comes from the Republican party, but feelings among critics are mixed as to whether it should be abolished or simply reformed to require Big Tech platforms to remain politically neutral in content moderation.

Read more:

FTC Expands Its Probes Into Big Techs Dealings; Nine of the Biggest Must Share Detailed Information ... - CPO Magazine

Big Tech companies are becoming bigger, stickier players in the payments space, appealing to consumers with their pervasive, sleek interfaces and ease of use. However, these tech companies have also continued to lean heavily on banks to supply the very critical back-end payments infrastructure. Many banks have been forced into collaboration with Big Tech to help improve their bottom lines and ultimately to survive. Examples include the Pays Apple, Google, Amazon, AliPay, WeChat and Google, Uber and others entering consumer banking.

But what do banks have that Big Tech wants? The answer is in the data, especially the payments data. The goal of Big Tech is to monetize data to capture, orchestrate and squeeze every drop of value out of it. For example, Google recently revamped Google Pay to include additional features such as offers, cash-back, spending analysis and shopping in an effort to increase its appeal. Google says it uses the payment data of individual consumers to find offers and personalize your experience.

Big Tech relies on the virtuous cycle of data gravity; the more data you generate, the better understanding they have of customers needs and desires, creating greater attraction across the ecosystem. Big Tech views data as a valuable investment because they can quickly generate high financial returns.

Meanwhile, banks simply dont fully appreciate the value of their payments data. Their approach to the massive amounts of data they hold remains disjointed. Payments data is sprawled across the organization in marketing, loyalty, fraud and credit risk silos. Many banks dont even understand how to generate financial returns from their payments data. Instead, they view data as a cost to be managed rather than a valuable resource to draw insights from.

For financial services organizations to avoid being boxed into a low-margin corner, they need to balance collaboration with Big Tech together with their own initiatives to find their most accretive position in the new smart ecosystem, leveraging their unique advantages to stay competitive. Banks must not rely solely on Big Tech to reap the rewards from the payments data that bolsters their own businesses.

A few ways that banks can leverage into their own plentiful data resources and kickstart a data-first mindset include:

Traditional banks must shift thinking and focus on digital payments transformation to activate their competitive differentiation strategies. They also must realize the value they bring when partnering with Big Tech and adjust their strategy and mindset to rise above the competition.

Summary

Article Name

Banks Can Compete Effectively with Big Tech in the New Smart Financial Ecosystem

Description

For financial services organizations to avoid being boxed into a low-margin corner, they need to balance collaboration with Big Tech together with their own initiatives to find their most accretive position in the new smart ecosystem, leveraging their unique advantages to stay competitive.

Author

Lawrence Latvala & Deborah Baxley

Publisher Name

PaymentsJournal

Publisher Logo

Visit link:

Banks Can Compete Effectively with Big Tech in the New Smart Financial Ecosystem - PaymentsJournal

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clearer than ever that we are at risk of losingcontrol of our economies.

Our institutions have increasingly struggled to meet the challenges of economic development before the crisis, and yet throughout the pandemic weve seen surgingstock market valuations of tech giants including staggeringCEO salaries the inability of anti-trust regulators, particularly in the United States, to effectivelyregulate marketsand the rise ofChinas tech companies.

Tech giants are not just surviving the pandemic; theyre thriving.

Whats known asthe superstar economyis one with a few hyper-productive, gigantic and highly profitable companies.

Superstar firms such as Walmart, Amazon or Facebook use new technologies to redefine markets, and benefit fromwhat are known as network effects simply put, the value of a product is enhanced the more people use it. Facebook is an example people are more likely to join Facebook if their friends and loved ones are on it.

Initially, superstar companies bring new ways of delivering value to customers, but as they grow, they become powerful monopolies.Our institutions have struggled with how to deal with these relatively new firmsand, for example, have allowed many mergers and acquisitions that eroded competition in their respective markets. Prominent examples includethe acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp by Facebook.

The U.S., finally, appears to be lowering the boom on Facebook,filing antitrust lawsuits on behalf of 46 states, Guam and the District of Columbiaover its takeover of Instagram and WhatsApp.

Superstar firms have also contributed to the shift inwealth distribution from labour to capital. Wealth was once commonly built through labour, rather than via capital that is often inherited or otherwise privileged.

Many superstar firms also have thebalance sheets of mid-sized economiesand hold more information about us than any country. Take Facebook.Mark Zuckerberg probably knows more about you than your government. However, you have no way of finding out becausedata ownershipis at best a complicated issue, and retaining your data would require you to have next to no online footprint.

That citizens dont have access to data about themselves is problematic. Clearly, the only person who should own your data is you. European data privacy laws are about to becomeeven stricter, but in North America, the erosion began in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that resulted in laws that dramatically eroded our privacy. Those laws have provided firms with the right to use the abundant data they collect.

Google is an example. One of the reasons Google is the gold standard of search engines is that it uses advanced machine learning algorithms. These algorithms use our data to learn what we want to see when were online.

Any successful competitor to Google would need to outperform years of learning advantage. That makes competition at bestvery challenging.

Primarily, we have seen two attempts to address the sheer might of tech giants and their lack of competitors.

In China,superstar firms have been largely nationalized. The state is increasingly involved in the most powerful companies in the country.Chinese regulators recently quashed the initial public offering of a financial company, Ant Group, in a high-profile example of government involvement.

In such a regime, the state is set up to have unlimited access to your data, so the principles upon which western democracies were built do not apply.

Second, in the western world, we traditionally address issues of market domination with antitrust regulations. Antitrust laws have started to hit the superstar economy hard in Europe. Google alone had to payfines of US$9.3 billionin the last three years.

However, antitrust measures have so far not been very effective given theres little room for action its either none at all or breaking up companies, which authorities are often hesitant to do.

Examples of such limited success from the past areStandard Oil and, later, AT&T. Standard Oil served America as a monopoly before it was broken up into 34 smaller companies in 1911. Many of these companies are known today under the names Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP and Marathon. Decades later, AT&T was also broken apart into seven smaller, regional companies.

The west also seems ill-equipped to regulate new markets that have emerged outside the traditional boundaries of an industry, including the highly digitized sectors that were fuelled by the growth of the internet over the past few decades.

Antitrust regulations for tech companies in the post-pandemic era need to change. Restricting networked companies to expand beyond their core business, and preventing mergers and acquisitions that inhibit the self-regulating character of markets, could increase the competitive forces in the market.

For example, Amazon as a platform for connecting buyers and sellers has transformed how we buy things. However, there is an obvious conflict of interest and a threat to competition when Amazon offers their own products on their own platform. Microsoft, as a provider of the most popular operating system for computers in the world, is a threat to competitors by offering its own browser.

There is no harm in restricting superstar firms to their core businesses, but a lot of harm when we dont.

Regulators need to better understand the innovative forces in industries and markets to prevent anti-competitive behaviour rather than looking at traditional measures like market share. More competitive markets would offer better outcomes for consumers.

Better antitrust measures also require applying national data security laws. In practice, this would mean that all online platforms need to fulfil the national regulations in the markets where theyre doing business as opposed to only in their home countries. These ideas are currently being advanced in Europe and will likely be a game-changer for tech giants.

A localized market approach could also reduce the effect of data breaches. Competition would become healthier as well, because superstar firms couldnt impose the rules of the game in the same way anymore.

We must better define the role of superstars in our economies and decide whether its wise to readjust our market principles to accommodate tech giants, or whether we should restrict tech giants to adhere to our market principles.

Capital-rich investors will certainly enjoy reaping the benefits from accommodating the Googles and Amazons of the world but the average customer likely wont.

View original post here:

The US takes aim at Facebook here's why the big tech giants must be reined in - Stuff Magazines

Photo: Shutterstock

2020 was a year truly not like any other. Between the pandemic, racial justice movement and political upheaval in the United States, the year brought plenty of challenges and opportunities that were without precedent, completely turning the world on its head.

Amid all of this, we saw leaders of the Austin tech scene innovate and persevere, sometimes pivoting their businesses on a dime, all while also never losing sight of the struggles faced by their employees and communities.

At the same time, 2020 has brought an endless buzz about Austin as we see influential CEOs and companies increasingly looking to the Texas capital as one of the industrys next frontiers. As big as this year has been for ATX tech, 2021 seems likely to prove even bigger as this momentum continues.

Here at Built In, weve published dozens upon dozens of stories about how Austin startups have ridden this wave and responded to these historic times over the past year. Before we turn the page on 2020, we wanted to let the numbers do the talking as we share the five most-viewed Austin tech news stories we wrote this year.

#5. Tech companies helped Amplify Austin raise $12M for nonprofits. Austins eighth annual citywide day of giving, the Amplify Austin Day, came just before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, and likely played a big role in helping nonprofits navigate a turbulent year. Organized by I Live Here I Give Here, the day raised over $12 million for 760 participating nonprofits like the Boys & Girls Clubs and the Central Texas Food Bank in its biggest year yet. Tech companies including Cirrus Logic, Silicon Labs, Enverus, SolarWinds, VRBO and Indeed dominated the days fundraising leaderboard.

#4. Hippo Insurance raised big funding, ramps up Austin hiring push. One of the stars of 2020s insurtech boom, Hippo also has a large presence in Austin that appears to be growing. When the Palo Alto company raised its $150 million Series E round in July, it said it would spend some of the cash on building a new 310-person campus in the Texas capital. The company announced it raised another $350 million in November, bringing its valuation to $1.5 billion as it looks to roll its product out nationwide. Hippo plans to go public next year and hire 100 new employees at its offices by the end of next year.

#3. A Cloud Guru saw its revenue surge, plans hiring surge. Austin-headquartered edtech company A Cloud Guru had a huge 2020, all things considered. This summer, the company announced that it had passed $80 million in annual recurring revenue, a 362 percent year-over-year increase, and saw a 157 percent year-over-year surge in its total user count. The company had planned a hiring surge in response to that growth with the majority of the roles based out of Austin and that momentum is continuing. The company is currently hiring for a range of roles in engineering, sales, marketing, UI/UX and more.

#2. Icon raised $35M for its 3D-printed homes. While Icons $35 million Series A, announced in August and led by Moderne Ventures, doesnt rank among the largest funding rounds for Austin tech in 2020, the startups mission to use 3D printing technology to help people print their own homes, affordably and efficiently is a novel one, and the Built In Austin audience clearly agreed. The companys homes could be for sale in Texas as soon as next year. Expect to see big things from this company soon.

#1. Tesla chose Austin, and an HQ could be next. In a year packed with big tech news in Austin, perhaps no story was bigger than the news that Tesla chose Austin for the site of its newest gigafactory. The news, rumored and hinted at throughout much of the start of the year and confirmed in July, means that Tesla is expected to recruit some 5,000 workers connected to the plant, qualifying it as the citys largest tech employer.

The company has already begun its hiring push in Austin, with hundreds of Central Texas-based jobs currently listed on its site. Meanwhile, the move of its CEO, Elon Musk, to the state is contributing to a fresh round of speculation that the company might next relocate its headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin.

Original post:

These Are Built In Austin's 5 Most-Viewed News Stories of 2020 - Built In Austin

In 2021, tech, an industry built on speedy change, is going to have to learn to wait.

The big picture: Every crisis tech faces from the onslaught of antitrust litigation to the massive SolarWinds cyberattack to the pandemic's toll on health and the economy has unfolded in slow motion and will take at least as long to resolve.

What's happening: Tech built its success on eliminating delays, from the late-20th-century dawn of personal computing's Moore's Law-driven exponential growth and the beginning of supercharged "internet time" to Facebook's "move fast and break things" ascent and Amazon's same-day delivery promises.

That magic is failing at this historical moment. Tech may have prospered as a lifeline to the homebound during a shelter-in-place year, but now the industry's legendary agility offers no short-cuts around the problems it confronts.

Fending off the monopoly-busters:

Coping with the pandemic aftermath:

Cleaning up the SolarWinds cyberattack mess:

Our thought bubble: Each of these crises demands resilience from companies, and resilience isn't something that tech's young giants have had much experience cultivating.

The bottom line: Tech companies can't avoid slowing down and planning for the long horizon all they can do is try to get good at it.

Here is the original post:

Frenetic tech giants' next trick: Learn patience and play a long game - Axios

President-elect Biden will spend 2021 trying to return America to what he considers a more normal time, while President Trump tries to lock down control of the GOP all at a time when misinformation and alternate narratives get even worse.

Biden is going to be "a man on a small, lonely island trying to unite the country," attempting to restore civility and return to normal in an America where that's no longer possible, Axios' Margaret Talev reports.

President Trump's expected announcement that he'll run for president again in 2024 allows him "to freeze the Republican Party in place," Axios' Jonathan Swan reports. The timing isn't imminent, but when it happens, "he will try to control the Republican National Committee ... and he's going to try to squash the prospective 2024 Republican field."

The rise of alternate universes is on track to get even worse, per Axios' Sara Fischer. "The information economy definitely favors speed and scale, as well as hyperbole. It does not favor facts and measured reporting."

If any real moves to crack down on the power of Big Tech happen, they're more likely to come from the regulatory agencies like the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission than from Congress, Axios' Ina Fried reports.

The Federal Reserve "has created this environment where there's no such thing as risk," but that can't go on forever and Wall Street knows it, per Axios' Dion Rabouin.

Read the rest here:

Five trends that will shape America in 2021 - Axios

By Hannah Wright, Director, Sage People

The impact of the global pandemic is not yet known, but many businesses have plans underway to recover, rebuild and eventually grow including hiring. Digitally native talent is becoming increasingly sought after as business leaders become more aware of the importance of data and analytical skills when it comes to business survival. Shockingly, research shows that59% of employers lack workers with soft digital skills, such as problem solving, and 51% are experiencing a shortage of hard digital skills, for instance financial modelling.

Projecting the future of the business through financial forecasting is now one of the most critical business functions in the current climate, causing financial talent to be in high demand. The latest generation of young graduates enter the finance industry and begin their professional journey. However, their attention is notoriously hard to grasp. To attract, and importantly retain these young professionals, businesses must rethink their finance function to be considered as a potential employer for them.

Nurturing a flexible, supportive and encouraging environment

Despite the vast amount of people looking for jobs at the moment, attracting younger generations still has its challenges. In the accountancy sector,84% of professionals believe younger generations have progressive expectations, attitudes and talentsthat will need to be nurtured in order to attract them. But the good news is that this can be achieved by reflecting these attitudes across the business.

Those looking to hire Gen Zers, need to understand that personal support and career development prospects play a major role when it comes to attracting and motivating this generation. Even though times are tough, its important for businesses to show young employees that they are invested in their future to make them feel valued and motivated. The initiative should be taken by finance teams and particularly the CFO. From the outset, employers should offer tailored training programmes to each new starter, that help to develop the core skills they need to fulfil their role, develop professionally and progress in the business.

Generation Z are graduating from education and entering the workplace at a very uncertain time. Even as COVID measures wax and wane, Generation Remote will expect a more flexible working environment, with the ability to work changeable hours and from the safety and convenience of their homes. A workplace culture that prioritises mental wellbeing and a work-life balance isnt just a nice to have, but an expectation..

Surprisingly, not all businesses have embarked on this flexible cultural change that has been encouraged as a result of the pandemic. While it may be difficult, finance leaders should reconsider whether the traditional nine-to-five, desk-bound culture is still serving the business successfully. If not, they may be depriving themselves of valuable talent and could look to adopt a more flexible approach. Flexible working is no longer a work perk, it has now become a staple feature that is expected from businesses who want to attract the brightest talent.

Using technology to empower young professionals

However, it doesnt stop there. Generation Z want more than support in the workplace and flexible working initiatives. Innovative technology that supports and empowers employees in their roles is equally critical. The widespread use of old, disparate systems not only stifles agility and innovation it can scare away young talent.

Outdated technology is commonplace within businesses today, as many companies fail to prioritise the benefits that data and analytics can bring. Yet, spending valuable time training beginners on how to use outdated software is a costly process and is hardly an exciting activity for someone just starting in their role.

By nurturing a tech-savvy environment with a focus on integration and productivity, businesses can equip young people with all the tools they need to achieve and thrive. Cloud-based technology provides access to the latest tools, meaning young workers dont need to struggle with outdated technology. Instead, they can access systems whenever and wherever they want, effectively facilitating todays remote working world.

In this way, the introduction of new technology has a cyclical effect on innovation. New technology attracts new talent, which in turn brings more fresh ideas, perspectives and capabilities to a business. This is especially true of artificial intelligence where we can see40% of Gen Zers using AI in their working lives compared to only 28% of Baby Boomers.

Employing a finance team who are fresh out of education allows your business to utilize the latest technology and tools that appeal to their generation and come so naturally to them. With this comes the rise of the intelligent organisation one able to leverage technology to understand and make optimal decisions based on integrated data insights. Ongoing visibility into the state of the business enables employees to be more adaptable and to grasp new practices when necessary, this is vital when the pace of change is moving quickly.

Young people have always sat at the center of society, influencing trends both inside and outside of the workplace. The skills within the Gen Z bracket are now more crucial than ever whether it is implementing cloud-based solutions, digitising workflows or finding technical solutions. Attracting and retaining talent amongst the latest graduates adds real value, encouraging businesses to keep up with the pace of evolving technology and client demands.

See the rest here:

Three payment trends for 2021: platform war, safety and Big Tech - Global Banking And Finance Review

As the debate over big tech and antitrust intensified over the past year, certainty reigned.

On one side are those who are certain that companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are monopolies, dominant in individual markets like search, social networking, e-commerce and app stores. They are certain that mergers between companies like Facebook and Instagram reduced competition. And theyre certain that antitrust law has calcified, unable to account for new technologies. As a recent report by the House Judiciary Committee claimed, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startupshave become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons.

On the other side of the debate are those who are certain that competition is flourishing in the tech sector, with innovation yielding great products at ever-lower prices, and companies like TikTok and Snap emerging to challenge incumbents. They are certain that mergers have benefited consumers. And theyre certain that we dont need to re-examine antitrust doctrine because its flexible enough to evolve with technology.

In the course of this debate, Ive espoused my own certainties. When I worked for Facebook, it never felt like we could afford to be complacent. We faced real competitive threats. If I had shown up at a meeting and announced that Facebook didnt compete with Google, Apple or TikTok, I would have been laughed out of the room. And I saw Facebooks investment in developing new features for its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions and improving the safety, security and infrastructure of both products. So its hard for me to reconcile my experience in the tech sector with the antitrust arguments now being waged against it.

But if Novembers election taught us anything, its that our assumptions are often wrong. With polls predicting a blue-wave election that never materialized, predictions that seemed certain before the election now seem flimsy in the wake of it.

Original post:

Big Tech and Antitrust: A Path Forward - The Wall Street Journal