8.88k followers • 30 symbols Watchlist by Yahoo Finance
Follow this list to discover and track the most popular Activist Hedge Fund positions.
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Adobe Systems Incorporated
United Technologies Corporation
PayPal Holdings, Inc.
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
Boston Scientific Corporation
Ross Stores, Inc.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
IQVIA Holdings Inc.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.
Altice USA, Inc.
Burlington Stores, Inc.
VICI Properties Inc.
Tradeweb Markets Inc.
Black Knight, Inc.
Newell Brands Inc.
Americold Realty Trust
Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
The Chemours Company
KAR Auction Services, Inc.
(Bloomberg) -- Prince Andrew’s attempt to explain away his friendship with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein in a high-profile TV interview degenerated into a farce that threatens to be the British royal family’s biggest public relations disaster since its handling of the death of Princess Diana in 1997.PrinceAndrew trended high on Twitter as Saturday’s hour-long interview with the BBC began airing on prime-time British TV. Interviewed by Newsnight host Emily Maitlis in a carpeted room, Queen Elizabeth II’s second son gave a wooden display in which he denied sleeping with Virginia Roberts, one of Epstein’s alleged teenaged sex slaves. By Sunday morning, there was no doubt where the public’s sympathies lay.He knew the liaison didn’t happen, he said, because Roberts has referred to him being “sweaty” -- and he once had a medical condition at the time that meant he couldn’t sweat. Also, he remembered that was the same day he took his daughter Princess Beatrice to a Pizza Express restaurant in suburban Surrey.When pressed why he recalled this date so clearly, he replied, “because going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do, a very unusual thing for me to do.”The prince’s answers -- particularly on why he decided to stay in Epstein’s New York mansion for four days in 2010 because it was “convenient” -- will probably place him in the public domain for weeks or longer. That visit came months after Epstein was released from custody following his conviction as a sex offender.It’s another unwelcome distraction for the House of Windsor. Some older negative storylines are set to be aired in the third series of Netflix’s “The Crown,” and it’s had to deal recently with the PR fallout from a damaging interview that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex gave to broadcaster ITV.While there’s always been a hardcore of royalists supporting the monarchy, its popularity in Britain took a major hit following the Queen’s initially rigid and protocol-driven response to the Princess of Wales’s death in a car crash at age 36. Buckingham Palace’s initial refusal to fly the Royal Standard at half-staff came in for particular criticism.Instant ReactionReaction to Andrew’s interview came thick and fast. Little of it was in favor of the prince, or of the team who thought it was a good idea for him to go in front of the camera. The Sun, Britain’s top-selling newspaper, rated his attempt with the headline, “Wince Andrew.”On Twitter, quiz show host Richard Osman mused that “he’s just too thick to even lie properly,” while Craig Oliver, the former communications chief for ex-prime minister David Cameron said, “it will go down as one of the worst PR decisions ever -- proof you really can make things a lot worse when you try to explain yourself.”Andrew appears to have agreed to the interview against the advice of the public relations consultant hired to try to revive his image in the wake of the Epstein revelations. Jason Stein tried to convince him not to do the interview and quit his post two weeks ago after Andrew insisted on going ahead, the Sunday Times reported.Before the broadcast, the Twitter account of Virginia Giuffre, formerly Roberts, retweeted the opinion of British journalist Peter Barron in which he said the interview would only make the scandal worse.(Updates with resignation of adviser in ninth paragraph)\--With assistance from Hailey Waller and Andrew Davis.To contact the reporter on this story: James Ludden in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Matthew G. Miller at firstname.lastname@example.org, James LuddenFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Intuit (INTU) stock is in the midst of a solid run, but its shares have cooled off a bit recently. This could set up a buying opportunity for those high on the software-as-a-service firm...
(Bloomberg) -- Elizabeth Warren said Friday her Medicare-for-All plan would be implemented over three years, a major concession to the difficulty of fundamentally changing the way Americans get health care. Managed-care and hospital stocks moved higher on the news.A Medium post Warren published Friday mapped out a strategy to enact a mandatory government-run health care system that she estimates would cost $20.5 trillion but others have tagged at more than $30 trillion.Warren said she would inch up to Medicare-for-all, starting with a plan to cover children and poor families. That would happen through a legislative maneuver in her first 100 days in the White House, while not actually eliminating private insurance plans until her third year in office.Health-care companies, which worried about extinction, rallied Friday, leading the S&P 500 Health Index to an all-time high. Among them, some of the nation’s largest insurers such as UnitedHealth Group Inc., Humana Inc., Anthem Inc. and Centene Corp. have climbed more than 5% in Friday’s trading.The advance in health care is a turnaround from the first nine months of the year, when the industry trailed most of its market peers over drug-pricing regulations and Medicare for All proposals.Even if Warren wins the White House and Democrats win control of both the House and Senate, Warren’s timeline is still optimistic, given how Congress operates.She said she would ask Congress to use a quirk in the budget process to allow a simple majority vote -- bypassing the 60-vote Senate threshold -- and “fast-track” a Medicare for All option that would immediately cover children under the age of 18 and families making less than $51,000 a year, and provide an option for expanded Medicare for people over 50.In the first three years, anyone else could buy into Medicare for All at a “modest” cost, Warren said, before it eventually became free.By her third year in office, Warren said, “the American people will have experienced the full benefits of a true Medicare for All option, and they can see for themselves how that experience stacks up against high-priced care that requires them to fight tooth-and-nail against their insurance company.”She added, “I won’t hand Mitch McConnell a veto over my health care agenda,” referring to the current Senate majority leader.After repeated questioning about how she would finance a government-run Medicare for All system that eliminates private insurance, Warren on Nov. 1 rolled out a $20.5 trillion proposal funded by taxing the rich and large corporations.Her gradual implementation “will give people time to adjust, people in the industry will have time to look for other jobs, pension plans will have time to start changing their portfolio and it will give the government time to gear up the bureaucracy,” said Gerald Friedman, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who consulted on Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign on Medicare for All, the basis of Warren’s plan.The new proposal sets Warren apart from Sanders, who has said he wouldn’t compromise with incremental health-care changes.But Friedman cautioned that a long transition period could leave the private health insurance industry in shambles.“If you know that in three years your company is going to be wiped out, then it could create perverse incentives, staff start exiting and companies may become dysfunctional before the government program is set up,” Friedman said.Warren’s new proposal at least at first ends up looking much like that of her moderate rivals, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg: Expanded government-run insurance without mandating it for everyone.Spokesmen for Biden and Buttigieg quickly weighed in.“Senator Warren is now trying to muddy the waters even further,” said deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield. “We’re not going to beat Donald Trump next year with double talk on health care.”Buttigieg spokeswoman Lis Smith said, “Senator Warren’s new health care ’plan’ is a transparently political attempt to paper over a very serious policy problem, which is that she wants to force 150 million people off their private insurance -- whether they like it or not.”Even if Democrats control the entire federal government in 2021, their best-case scenario is a narrow Senate majority that would likely leave Warren far short of the votes to pass Medicare for All. And several key Democrats have pledged not to eliminate the legislative filibuster. But the party is more united around the idea of a government-run insurance option.The budget fast-track process, known as reconciliation, has been used by majorities in both parties to avoid a filibuster. Democrats under President Barack Obama used it to pass Obamacare in 2010, while Republicans under President Donald Trump tried to use the procedure to repeal the health-care law in 2017 but came up short.“While Republicans tried to use fast-track budget reconciliation legislation to rip away health insurance from millions of people with just 50 votes in the Senate, I’ll use that tool in reverse – to improve our existing public insurance programs,” Warren wrote.Still, budget reconciliation creates complications as Senate rules require that such legislation be limited to changes involving taxes and spending. Republicans struggled to shoehorn their attempted repeal of Obamacare, which included regulatory reforms, into the process.Warren also vowed to take immediate action to lower drug prices in her first day as president, including insulin, EpiPens and drugs that save people from opioid overdoses. A Warren administration would help companies produce expensive medicines as a price-control measure and use administrative authority to ensure sufficient supply.(Updates with details in first, second, third paragraphs.)\--With assistance from Tatiana Darie.To contact the reporters on this story: Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou in Washington at email@example.com;Sahil Kapur in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Wendy Benjaminson at email@example.comFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- This time it’s official.Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates overtook Amazon.com Inc.’s Jeff Bezos as the world’s richest person on Friday, reclaiming the top ranking for the first time in more than two years.Gates may have been helped in part by the Pentagon’s surprise decision announced Oct. 25 to award a $10 billion cloud-computing contract to Microsoft over Amazon. Shares of Microsoft have since climbed 4%, giving Gates a $110 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Amazon’s stock is down about 2% since the announcement, putting Bezos’s net worth at $108.7 billion.Gates, 64, had briefly topped Bezos, 55, on an intraday basis last month after Amazon posted its first profit drop in two years, but shares of the world’s biggest online retailer pared the decline. The index, which tracks the wealth of the richest 500 people, is updated each trading day after U.S. markets close. Europe’s richest person, Bernard Arnault, is third with $102.7 billion.Read more: Microsoft Shares Surge After Controversial Pentagon Contract WinMicrosoft has surged 48% this year, boosting the value of Gates’s 1% stake. The rest of his wealth is derived from share sales and investments made over the years by his family office, Cascade.Bezos would be far richer if he and MacKenzie Bezos hadn’t divorced. The pair announced their split in January, with MacKenzie, 49, receiving a quarter of their Amazon holdings in July. Her net worth dipped to $35 billion on Friday. Gates, on the other hand, may have never relinquished the top spot were it not for his philanthropy. He has donated more than $35 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation since 1994.Gates recently shared his thoughts on the wealth tax that’s been proposed by some Democratic presidential candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, saying he’s already paid more than $10 billion in taxes."If I’d had to pay $20 billion, it’s fine," he said. But "when you say I should pay $100 billion, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over.”As of today, that would be $10 billion.(Updates with Gates comments on wealth tax starting in seventh paragraph.)\--With assistance from Sophie Alexander.To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Metcalf in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Pierre Paulden at email@example.com, Peter Eichenbaum, Steven CrabillFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- SoftBank Group Corp. has quietly completed an initial money-raising push for its second technology fund, at a fraction of its targeted $108 billion.The Japanese company has raised roughly $2 billion for the second Vision Fund so it can start backing startups, according to two people familiar with the matter. This stage of the fund-raising process is known as a first close, and SoftBank will continue gathering commitments. A Vision Fund spokesman declined to comment.SoftBank said in July that its second Vision Fund would be even larger than the first, which broke records in 2017 by raising almost $100 billion. This time around, SoftBank has said it is taking more control, committing $38 billion of its own capital and replacing Saudi Arabia, which was the largest investor in the first fund.So far, it is unclear whether there are any outside investors in the second fund. The original Vision Fund was announced in October 2016, but took another seven months for its first major closing with $93 billion in commitments.Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Co., which contributed $45 billion and $15 billion, respectively, to the first fund, are reconsidering how much to put into the new fund, Bloomberg News previously reported.Talks with Saudi Arabia are still ongoing, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private matters. Mubadala recently told Bloomberg News it had yet to decide on whether it would invest.SoftBank has said the second fund is also expected to collect money from Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Foxconn Technology Group and the sovereign wealth fund of Kazakhstan.SoftBank’s second Vision Fund has made at least one investment already. It recently participated in a financing round for Chinese online property listing service Beike Zhaofang, people with knowledge of the matter said. The company previously raised $800 million from investors in March, Caixin reported at the time. A representative for Beike was not immediately reachable for comment.WeWork and Uber Technologies Inc., two of the largest investments made by SoftBank and the first Vision Fund, have performed poorly this year. A recent summary of the first Vision Fund portfolio showed that the fair value of the fund’s stakes in transportation and logistics companies was $31.1 billion as of Sept. 30, just below the cost of those investments. The fair value of the fund’s real estate investments was $7.5 billion, below the $9 billion cost.That’s prompted some soul-searching at the Japanese company.“There was a problem with my own judgment, that’s something I have to reflect on,” SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son said.(Updates with a recent Vision Fund investment in eighth paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Gillian Tan in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Giles Turner in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at firstname.lastname@example.org, Alistair Barr, Andrew PollackFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Streaming video has been one of the biggest growth stories of the past several years, but even with all the attention that has been paid to the space, the industry is nowhere near full maturity, according to an executive at streaming-platform Roku Inc.“In the long run, the total addressable market for streaming video is all TV money, period,” said Scott Rosenberg, a senior vice president and general manager of Roku’s platform business. Over-the-top (OTT) streaming “lets advertisers do things that they’ve gotten used to in digital but which hasn’t been possible on TV,” such as individually targeting consumers based on user-specific data.Rosenberg compared the industry, specifically streaming-related advertising, to the early days of smartphones, when usage far outpaced how much advertisers focused on them. He cited a study from Magna that suggested 29% of TV viewing was happening outside the traditional model, although only 3% of TV ad budgets were being allocated to streaming services.That imbalance will correct “in a pretty accelerated fashion over the next two or three years,” he said in a phone interview. “Marketers are starting to move their money, and once it begins to happen apace, I think we’ll see a significant outflow.”It will likely take a few years for streaming ad revenue to surpass linear TV, he said, though the trend is accelerating. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, OTT ad revenue is expected to grow to $9 billion by 2023, compared with $4 billion in 2019. The TV advertising market is estimated at around $70 billion.While much of the focus on the sector has been on the fight for audiences between content providers -- both Apple and Walt Disney have recently launched new services, with others on the way, including HBO Max next spring -- Roku has benefited by being a portal to these services, rather than a competitor. Last month, Apple announced that its TV+ app would be available on Roku’s platform, news that was notable as the iPhone maker offers its own streaming hardware.The agreement “validates [Roku’s] dominant role as an aggregator,” and “the content-agnostic nature of its platform will allow more deals with streaming services,” Bloomberg Intelligence wrote.Investors have rewarded Roku’s position within the ecosystem. Shares are up more than 400% thus far this year, making it the biggest gainer in the Russell 1000 index by far. Netflix Inc. is up about 10% thus far in 2019, while Disney has risen 32%.Earlier this month, RBC Capital Markets wrote that Roku was “one of the best plays on ad-supported OTT, with the company being one of the best positioned to take share of the very large, underpenetrated” $70 billion TV advertising spending opportunityRoku posted its sixth straight advance on Friday and has risen more than 30% over that stretch. The gains have coincided with the launch of Disney+, as well as bullish commentary from Bank of America, which on Friday raised its price target and wrote that Roku’s Black Friday discounts are setting it up for “outsized” account growth in the fourth quarter.While the stock struggled in September because of concerns about competition for streaming hardware, Roku’s platform business accounts for a growing percentage of its overall revenue. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, the division comprised nearly 70% of the company’s third-quarter revenue, while the rest came from its players business. Over all of 2018, platforms accounted for just 56.1% of revenue.Roku’s Rosenberg told Bloomberg that the company continued to view linear TV as its biggest competition for near-term growth. “We’re trying to take OTT advertising from a $5 billion market to a market that’s $20, $30, or even $50 billion. However, cord-cutters are leaving paid-TV in droves, and user engagement is on our side. When I started here, there were no networks doing streaming, but now Disney is all-in on a major service. There’s been a series of tipping points for the industry.”He added that he was planning to spend the weekend watching “The Mandalorian,” a new series set in the “Star Wars” universe, now streaming on Disney+.To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan Vlastelica in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Catherine Larkin at firstname.lastname@example.org, Tatiana DarieFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Retailers' performance over the last 2.5 months is a sign of positive market sentiment reentering the space. This sentiment will be tested next week when a wave of retail results hits the market.
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal from Alphabet Inc.’s Google in a multibillion-dollar clash that has divided Silicon Valley, agreeing to decide whether the company improperly used copyrighted programming code owned by Oracle Corp. in the Android operating system.The justices said they’ll review a federal appeals court’s conclusion that Google violated Oracle’s copyrights. Oracle says it’s entitled to at least $8.8 billion in damages.The case, which the court will resolve by July, promises to reshape the U.S. legal protections for software code, particularly the interfaces that let programs and devices communicate with one another. Google contends the appeals court ruling would make it harder to use interfaces to develop new applications.The ruling “has upended the computer industry’s longstanding expectation that developers are free to use software interfaces to build new computer programs,” Google argued.The appeals court decision reversed a jury finding that Google’s copying was a legitimate “fair use” of Oracle’s Java programming language.“There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a 3-0 ruling.At issue are pre-written directions known as application program interfaces, or APIs, which provide instructions for such functions as connecting to the internet or accessing certain types of files. By using those shortcuts, programmers don’t have to write code from scratch for every function in their software, or change it for every type of device.Oracle says the Java APIs are freely available to those who want to build applications that run on computers and mobile devices. But the company says it requires a license to use the shortcuts for a competing platform or to embed them in an electronic device.“We are confident the Supreme Court will preserve long established copyright protections for original software and reject Google’s continuing efforts to avoid responsibility for copying Oracle’s innovations,” said Deborah Hellinger, an Oracle spokeswoman. “In the end, a finding that Google infringed Oracle’s original works will promote, not stifle, future innovation.”Oracle says Google was facing an existential threat because its search engine -- the source of its advertising revenue -- wasn’t being used on smartphones. Google bought the Android mobile operating system in 2005 and copied Java code to attract developers but refused to take a license, Oracle contends.‘Incalculable’ Harm“Naturally, it inflicted incalculable market harm on Oracle,” Oracle told the Supreme Court. “This is the epitome of copyright infringement, whether the work is a news report, a manual, or computer software.”Android generated $42 billion for Google between 2007 and 2016, according to Oracle court filings. Google said it welcomed the court’s decision to review the case.“We hope that the court reaffirms the importance of software interoperability in American competitiveness,” said Google’s chief legal officer, Kent Walker. “Developers should be able to create applications across platforms and not be locked into one company’s software.”At the Supreme Court, Google argues that software interfaces are categorically ineligible for copyright protection. Google also contends that the Federal Circuit restricted the “fair use” defense to copyright infringement so much as to make it impossible for a developer to reuse an interface in a new application.“What Oracle is seeking here is nothing less than complete control over a community of developers that have invested in learning the free and open Java language,” Google argued.The Trump administration is backing Oracle at the Supreme Court and urged the justices to reject the appeal. Microsoft Corp., Mozilla Corp. and Red Hat Inc. are among the companies that urged the Supreme Court to give Google a hearing.The appeal encompasses two decisions by the Federal Circuit in the six-year-long battle. The first is a 2014 decision that the programming language can be copyrighted, and the second is a 2018 ruling that overturned the jury’s verdict of “fair use.” The Supreme Court had previously rejected Google’s petition over the 2014 decision.If Oracle wins, the case will go back to a federal jury in California, where the only issue will be how much Google should pay in damages. Should Google win on either question, that would end the case.The case is Google v. Oracle America, 18-956.(Updates with company comments beginning in ninth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Naomi Nix.To contact the reporters on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at email@example.com;Susan Decker in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at email@example.com, Elizabeth Wasserman, Jon MorganFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- The movie “Dark Waters” about the effect of deadly chemicals in West Virginia is “very damaging” for DuPont de Nemours Inc., Wall Street analysts at Fermium Research wrote in a report before its theatrical debut on November 22.Analyst Frank Mitsch -- who watched a sneak preview -- thinks that “Dark Waters” will probably be a hit film and may cast a shadow over DuPont shares and the entire chemical industry. The movie focuses on DuPont and Chemours Co.’s already-settled litigation over perfluorooctanoic acid production.DuPont’s shares fell as much as 2.7% on Friday in New York, while broader market inched higher.“We can see a scenario where interest in DD from individual investors (85% institutional ownership according to Bloomberg) dissipates, though also a broader concern for the chemicals sector given the negative portrayal,” he added.One positive, though, is that Chemours wasn’t mentioned at all during the movie, Mitsch said. The focus was solely on DuPont and it’s possible that the average moviegoer will likely “walk away disgusted” only with DuPont.For their part, investors are probably more interested in DuPont due to the prospect for merger and acquisition activity. The company has been exploring the divestiture of assets, Mitsch wrote, and if a deal occurs it’s possible that the negatives from the movie may subside.“Our hot-take is the film is a near-term negative, but when the first blockbuster M&A transaction gets announced, it may fade into the background,” the analyst concluded.To contact the reporter on this story: Aoyon Ashraf in Toronto at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Brad Olesen at email@example.com, Scott SchnipperFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
We searched for semiconductor stocks utilizing our Zacks Stock Screener that investors might want to consider buying ahead of what could be a strong year for chip companies in 2020...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Earlier this week, my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Chris Bryant examined the ongoing troubles for advanced jet engines used on today’s commercial airliners. These engines now seem to be reaching their technical limits, and as Bryant says, we may be asking too much of the technology.That’s not great news for the companies making those turbines, or for those flying the aircraft. It’s also not the best news for the climate, given the trajectory of emissions from air travel and air freight. Carbon dioxide emissions from commercial aviation made up 2.4% of global emissions in 2018 and, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation, have grown 32% in just five years.The geography of those emissions is highly concentrated. Three markets — the U.S., the European Union and China — account for more than half of all emissions; the top 10 emitters contribute more than 70% of the global total.There’s something hopeful, actually, in that geographical distribution. High concentration means that tackling emissions in just three markets can have an outsized impact, and standards set in those large markets are easy for others to follow. There’s another aspect to the distribution of aviation emissions that’s worth examining: emissions by type of aircraft. Bryant writes of problems with engines on both widebody and narrowbody aircraft: the Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc Trent 1000 engines used on the widebody Boeing Co. 787, and United Technologies Corp. subsidiary Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan used on the narrowbody Airbus SE A320neo. While widebody aircraft make up one-third of global emissions, narrowbody and regional passenger plans are almost half. If the turbines used to propel the largest and longest-range of aircraft are approaching technical limits but almost half of emissions are from shorter-range and smaller aircraft, then there’s space to innovate, for emissions’ sake, at the short and small end. And that space looks electric and hybrid. Next month, Vancouver-based Harbour Air will fly its first electric seaplane, a De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver prototype retrofitted with a propulsion system from Seattle-based electric aviation company MagniX. It’s a first look at what electric commercial flight could be, and as it draws upon a sophisticated, global and continually improving network of battery makers while the cost of batteries continues to decrease, it has room to grow. “Because of airborne mobility development, this technology is unstoppable, and it’s getting more practical as every day goes by,” says Greg McDougall, Harbour Air’s CEO. “The brainpower and money involved is snowballing, and there’s no doubt we can roll out what we’re doing to other small airlines.” It’s an infectious enthusiasm, but it just might take to the air elsewhere, too. Weekend readingThe Qantas Group plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Meanwhile, Formula 1 plans to reach that milestone by 2030. Ferrari says its new Roma coupe is inspired by the postwar Eternal City. It’s a bit of a step up from the Vespas and Topolinos of the film “Roman Holiday.” The European Investment Bank will not consider new financing of unabated fossil fuels, including natural gas, after 2021. Sweden’s Riksbank is selling bonds issued by the Canadian province of Alberta and the Australian states of Queensland and Western Australia due to those areas’ large climate impacts. How Australia’s big businesses saw the climate turning point coming. The world’s biggest gun has helped solve a long-standing space mystery: the risk that orbiting microdebris poses to satellites. Weather-tech startup Understory is selling Hail Safe, an insurance product that protects auto dealers from hailstorm damages. Think tank Macro Polo’s deep dive into the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) supply chain in East Asia. Adidas has abandoned its robot factory experiment. Open-source code will survive the apocalypse in an Arctic cave. Silicon Valley’s Singularity University is cutting staff, and its CEO is stepping down. Elon Musk’s keep-it-in-the-family deal for SolarCity has become the top threat to Tesla Inc.’s future. The new dot-com bubble is here: It’s called online advertising. Designer Iris van Herpen’s work is inspired by the Large Hadron Collider. A fascinating look at how American brands became indelibly Japanese. In data journalism, technology still matters less than people. The coming age of generative biology. Get Sparklines delivered to your inbox. Sign up here. And subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.To contact the author of this story: Nathaniel Bullard at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Brooke Sample at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Nathaniel Bullard is a BloombergNEF energy analyst, covering technology and business model innovation and system-wide resource transitions.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Amazon is protesting the Pentagon's decision to award Microsoft a $10 billion DoD contract.
Investing.com – Stocks surged Friday setting new closing and intraday highs, as investors cheered decent economic news and were relieved when the White House said trade negotiations with China were progressing.
(Bloomberg) -- Occidental Petroleum Corp. rose after Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. bought an additional stake in the debt-laden oil producer and a Delaware judge ruled against activist investor Carl Icahn’s request for company files.Occidental gained as much as 4.2% Friday after Berkshire disclosed the purchase of $332 million of shares in the third quarter. That makes it the 17th-largest investor in Occidental, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.The stock is in addition to the $10 billion of preferred shares Buffett bought earlier in 2019 to help Occidental fund its takeover of Anadarko Petroleum Corp.The vote of confidence from Buffett is “certainly a positive for the stock,” said Muhammed Ghulam, a Houston-based analyst at Raymond James & Associates. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he buys more if the price drops lower.”Occidental dropped to a 14-year low earlier this month after Chief Executive Officer Vicki Hollub unveiled a plan to slash capital spending by 40% to deal with the debt taken on in its $37 billion takeover of Anadarko.Icahn has said the takeover, which was completed in August, was flawed. He plans a proxy battle to change Occidental’s board next year. But the billionaire investor lost a ruling that would have required Occidental to hand over company files related to the deal that may have assisted him in his fight. Icahn plans to appeal the decision.Occidental traded 2.8% higher at $38.83 a share at 10:29 a.m. in New York.To contact the reporter on this story: Kevin Crowley in Houston at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Simon Casey at email@example.comFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- U.S. hedge funds bought shares of Facebook Inc. and Netflix Inc. despite steep declines in the technology darlings during a volatile third quarter.Chase Coleman and David Tepper were among the money managers who increased their Facebook holdings during the three-month stretch that saw the social-media giant fall nearly 8%. Netflix was favored by firms including Lee Ainslie’s Maverick Capital Ltd. and Dan Sundheim’s D1 Capital Partners despite a 27% drop in the three months ending Sept. 30.Hedge fund managers, who have long adored FAANG stocks, had to navigate a tumultuous period. While Amazon.com Inc. also fell, down 8%, Google parent Alphabet Inc. and Apple Inc. both rose more than 13%. At the same time, the S&P 500 index gained 1.2% amid an escalation in the U.S.-China trade war and dovish moves by central bankers.Here are some other notable moves:Harvard University’s endowment added 2 million Facebook shares, bringing the value of its position to roughly $400 million on Sept. 30, and making the company its biggest single U.S. equity holding.Stan Druckenmiller offloaded almost his entire stake in Uber Technologies Inc., selling 2.5 million shares. His Duquesne Family Office took a stake in Shopify Inc.Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. announced new common-equity stakes in Occidental Petroleum Corp., which is on top of a preferred stake that was previously disclosed. It also purchased shares of home furnishings company RH, which sent the stock surging the day after the filing. RH rose as much as 8.7%. the most since June, in early trading on Friday. Berkshire trimmed some of its largest stock bets, including Apple, Wells Fargo & Co. and Phillips 66.Viking Global Investors ditched its $1.2 billion stake in UnitedHealth Group Inc. as health-care stocks were hit by politics both in Washington and on the campaign trial.Maverick sold 690,000 shares of managed-care company Humana Inc., which had been the fund’s top U.S. equity position in the second quarter. (It now sits at No. 9).Microsoft Corp. was one of the less popular stocks for the second quarter in a row. Tiger cubs Viking, Coatue Management and Maverick all decreased their holdings in the tech giant as did Duquesne. But the software giant was up more than 3% during that period and has been a top performer this year -- shares have gained almost 46%.(Adds gain in RH shares in Buffett section.)\--With assistance from Katherine Chiglinsky, Emma Vickers, Vincent Bielski, Scott Deveau and Michael McDonald.To contact the reporters on this story: Katia Porzecanski in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Hema Parmar in New York at email@example.com;Melissa Karsh in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sam Mamudi at email@example.com, Alan MirabellaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Nov.15 -- U.S. hedge funds took advantage of declines for Netflix Inc. and Facebook Inc. to load up on shares during the third quarter, according to the latest glimpse into money managers’ holdings. Bloomberg’s Sonali Basak reports on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas."
U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Friday rejected allegations by Amazon that it lost out on a lucrative Pentagon project for political reasons. (SOUNDBITE) (ENGLISH) U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MARK ESPER, SAYING: "As you know I recused myself from involvement on the competition, but I am confident that it was conducted freely and fairly without any type of outside influence." Amazon cried foul after the government awarded a $10 billion dollar cloud computing contract to rival Microsoft. President Donald Trump has long criticized Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos. Amazon filed notice last week saying it would formally protest the decision and in a company-wide meeting this week - Amazon Web Services' CEO Andy Jassy said awarding a contract objectively would be challenging for an agency when the president is disparaging one of the applicants. The project, known as Jedi, is part of a broad digital modernization initiative by the Pentagon. In a new book, a former navy commander recounts a tale where Trump called then-defense secretary Jim Mattis and directed him to "screw Amazon" by preventing it from bidding on the Jedi contract. "We're not going to do that," Mattis later told Pentagon officials, according to the book. His successor, Mark Esper, recused himself because his son works at IBM, one of the original contract applicants.