Global Market Comments
April 3, 2019
Fiat Lux
Featured Trade:
(WHO WILL BE THE NEXT FANG?)
(FB), (AMZN), (NFLX), (GOOGL), (AAPL),
(BABA), (TSLA), (WMT), (MSFT),
(IBM), (VZ), (T), (CMCSA), (TWX)
Posts
FANGS, FANGS, FANGS! Can’t live with them but can’t live without them either.
I know you’re all dying to get into the next FANG on the ground floor, for to do so means capturing a potential 100-fold return, or more.
I know because I’ve done it four times. The split adjusted average cost of my Apple shares is only 25 cents compared to today’s $174, so you can understand my keen interest. My average on Tesla is $16.50.
Uncover a new FANG and the riches will accrue rapidly. Facebook (FB), Amazon AMZN), Netflix (NFLX), and Alphabet (GOOGL) didn’t exist 25 years ago. Apple (AAPL) is relatively long in the tooth at 40 years. And now all four are in a race to become the world’s first trillion-dollar company.
One thing is certain. The path to FANGdom is shortening. It took Apple four decades to get where it is today, Facebook did it in one. As Steve Jobs used to tell me when he was running both Apple and Pixar, “These overnight successes can take a long time.”
There is also no assurance that once a FANG always a FANG. In my lifetime, I have seen far too many Dow Average components once considered unassailable crash and burn, like Eastman Kodak (KODK), General Electric (GE), General Motors (GM), Sears (SHLD), Bethlehem Steel, and IBM (IBM).
I established in an earlier piece that there are eight essential attributes of a FANG, product differentiation, visionary capital, global reach, likeability, vertical integration, artificial intelligence, accelerant, and geography.
We are really in a “What have you done for me lately” world. That goes for me too. All that said, I shall run through a short list for you of the future FANG candidates we know about today.
Alibaba (BABA)
Alibaba is an amalgamation of the Chinese equivalents of Amazon, PayPal, and Google all sewn together. It accounts for a staggering 63% of all Chinese online commerce and is still growing like crazy. Some 54% of all packages shipped in China originate from Alibaba.
The juggernaut has over half billion active users, and another half billion placing orders through mobile phones. It is a master of AI and B2B commerce. There is nothing else like it in the world.
However, it does have some obvious shortcomings. Its brand is almost unknown in the US. It has a huge problem with fakes sold through their sites.
It also has an ownership structure for foreign investors that is byzantine, to say the least. It is a contractual right to a share of profits funneled through a PO box in the Cayman Island. The SEC is interested, to say the least.
We also don’t know to what extent founder Jack Ma has sold his soul to the Beijing government. It’s probably a lot. That could be a problem if souring trade relations between the US and the Middle Kingdom get worse, a certainty with the current administration.
Tesla (TSLA)
Before you bet on a new startup breaking into the Detroit Big Three, go watch the movie “Tucker” first. Spoiler Alert: It ends in tears.
Still, Tesla (TSLA) has just passed the 270,000 mark in the number of cars manufacturered. Tucker only got to 50.
Having led my readers into the stock after the IPO at $16.50, I am already pretty happy with this company. Owning three of their cars helps too (two totaled). But Tesla still has a long way to go.
It all boils down to the success of the $35,000, 200-mile range Tesla 3 for which it already has 500,000 orders. So far so good.
It’s all about scale. If it can produce these cars in sufficient numbers, it will take over the world and easily become the next FANG. If it can’t, it won’t. It’s that simple.
To say that a lot is already built into the share price would be an understatement. Tesla now trades at ten times revenues compared to 0.5 for Ford (F) and (General Motors (GM). That’s a relative overvaluation of 20:1.
Any of a dozen competing electric car models could scale up with a discount model before they do, such as the similarly priced GM Bolt. But with a ten-year lead in the technology, I doubt it.
It isn’t just cars that will anoint Tesla with FANG sainthood. The firm already has a major presence in rooftop solar cell installation through Solar City, utility sized solar plants, industrial scale battery plants, and is just entering commercial trucks. Consider these all seeds for FANGdom.
One thing is certain. Without Tesla, there wouldn’t be s single mass-market electric car on the road today.
For that, we can already say thanks.
Uber
In the blink of an eye, ride sharing service Uber has become essential for globe-trotting travelers such as myself.
Its 2 million drivers completely disrupted the traditional taxi model for local transportation which remains unchanged since the days of horses and buggies.
That has created the first $75 billion of enterprise value. It’s what’s next that could make the company so interesting.
It is taking the lead in autonomous driving. It could also replace FeDex, UPS, DHL, and the US post office by offering same day deliveries at a fraction of the overnight cost.
It is already doing this now with Uber Foods which offers immediate delivery of takeouts (click here if you want lunch by the time you finish reading this piece.)
UberCopters anyone? Yes, it’s already being offered in France and Brazil.
Uber has the potential to be so much more if it can just outlive its initial growing pains.
It is a classic case of the founder being a terrible manager, as Travis Kalanick has lurched from one controversy to the next. The board finally decided he should spend much time on his new custom built 350-foot boat.
Its “bro” culture is notorious, even in Silicon Valley.
It is also getting enormous pushback from regulators everywhere protecting entrenched local interests. It has lost its license in London, the only place in the world that offered a decent taxi service pre-Uber. Its drivers are getting beaten up in Paris.
However, if it takes advantage of only a few of the doors open to it, status as a FANG beckons.
Walmart (WMT)
A few years ago, I was heavily criticized for pointing out that half the employees at my local Walmart (WMT) were missing their front teeth. They have since received a $2 an hour's pay raise, but the teeth are still missing. They don’t earn enough money to get them fixed.
The company is the epitome of bricks and mortar in a digital world with 12,000 stores in 28 countries. It is the largest private employer in the US, with 1.4 million workers, mostly earning minimum wage.
The Walmart customer is the very definition of the term “late adopter.” Many are there only because unlike Amazon, Wal-Mart accepts cash and Food Stamps.
Still, if Walmart can, in any way, crack the online nut, it would be a turbocharger for growth. It moved in this direction with the acquisition of Jet.com for $3 billion, a cutting-edge e-commerce firm based in Hoboken, NJ.
However, this remains a work in progress. Online sales account for only 4% of Walmart’s total. But they could only be a few good hires at the top away from success.
Microsoft (MSFT)
Talk about going from being the 800-pound gorilla to an 80 pound one, and then back to 800 pounds.
I don’t know why Microsoft (MSFT) lost its way for 15 years, but it did. Blame Bill Gates’s retirement from active management and his replacement by his co-founder Steve Ballmer.
Since Ballmer’s departure in 2014, the performance of the share price has been meteoric, rising by some 125% over the past two years.
You can thank the new CEO Satya Nadella who brought new vitality to the job and has done a complete 180, taking Microsoft belatedly into the cloud.
Microsoft was never one to take lightly. Windows still powers 90% of the world’s PCs. No company can function without its Office suite of applications (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint). SQL Server and Visual Studio are everywhere.
That’s all great if you want to be a public utility, which Microsoft shareholders don’t.
LinkedIn, the social media platform for professionals, could be monetized to a far greater degree. However, specialization does come at the cost of scalability.
It seems that the future is for Microsoft to go head to head against next door neighbor Amazon (AMZN) for the cloud services market while simultaneously duking it out with Alphabet (GOOGL).
My bet is that all three win.
Airbnb
This is another new app that has immeasurably changed my life for the better. Instead of cramming myself into a hotel suite with a wildly overpriced minibar for $600 a night, I get a whole house for $300 anywhere in the world, with a new local best friend along with it.
Overnight, Airbnb has become the world’s largest hotel chain without actually owning a single hotel. At its latest funding round in 2017, it was valued at $31 billion.
The really tricky part here is for the firm to balance out supply and demand in every city in the world at the same time. It is also not a model that lends itself to vertical integration. But who knows? Maybe priority deals with established hotels are to come.
This is another firm that is battling local regulation, that great barrier to technological innovation. None other than its home town of San Francisco now has strict licensing requirements for renters, a 30 day annual limitation, and a $1,000 a day fine for offenders.
The downtowns of many tourist meccas like Florence, Italy and Paris, France have been completely taken over by Airbnb customers, driving rents up and locals out.
IBM (IBM)
There was a time in my life when IBM was so omnipresent we thought like the Great Pyramids of Egypt it would be there forever. How times change. Even Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffet became so discouraged that he recently dumped the last of his entire five-decade long position.
A recent 20 consecutive quarters of declining profits certainly hasn’t helped Big Blue’s case. It is one of the only big technology companies whose share price has gone virtually nowhere for the past two years.
IBM’s problem is that it stuck with hardware for too long. An entrenched bureaucracy delayed its entry into services and the cloud, the highest growth areas of technology.
Still, with some $80 billion in annual revenues, IBM is not to be dismissed. Its brand value is still immense. It still maintains a market capitalization of $144 billion.
And it has a new toy, Watson, the supercomputer named after the company’s founder, which has great promise, but until now has remained largely an advertising ploy.
If IBM can reinvent itself and get back into the game, it has FANG potential. But for the time being, investors are unimpressed and sitting on their hands.
The Big Telecom Companies
My final entrant in the FANGstakes would be any combination of the four top telecommunication companies, Verizon (VZ), AT&T (T), Comcast (CMCSA), and Time Warner (TWX), which now control a near monopoly in the US.
There is a reason why the administration is blocking the AT&T/Time Warner merger, and it is not because these companies are consistently cited in polls as the most despised in America. They are trying to stop the creation of another hostile FANG.
Still, if any of the big four can somehow get together, the consequences would be enormous. Ownership of the pipes through which the modern economy courses bestows great power on these firms.
And Then….
There is one more FANG possibility that I haven’t mentioned. Somewhere, someplace, there is a pimple-faced kid in a dorm room thinking up a brand-new technology or business model that will take the world by storm and create the next FANG.
Call me crazy, but I have been watching this happen for my entire life.
I want to thank my friend, Scott Galloway, of New York University’s Stern School of Business, for some of the concepts in this piece. His book, “The Four” is a must read for the serious tech investor.
Creating the Next FANG?
Global Market Comments
April 1, 2019
Fiat Lux
Featured Trade:
(MARKET OUTLOOK FOR THE WEEK AHEAD, OR THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM)
(SPY), (TLT), (FCX), (DIS), (TSLA), (IWM), (AAPL),
(GOOGL), (MSFT), (PYPL), (AMZN)
Global Market Comments
March 29, 2019
Fiat Lux
SPECIAL FANG ISSUE
Featured Trade:
(FINDING A NEW FANG),
(FB), (AAPL), (NFLX), (GOOGL),
(TSLA), (BABA)
Mad Hedge Technology Letter
March 26, 2019
Fiat Lux
Featured Trade:
(PINTEREST COMES OUT)
(PINS), (FB), (AAPL), (GOOGL), (AMZN)
The Facebook (FB) of digital images is on deck and has filed to go public.
I'll give you the skinny on it.
Pinterest (PINS) has slightly different lingo - they call digital images pins, a collection of pins, a pinboard, and the users that post pins are pinners.
Aside from this little creative wrinkle, Pinterest does little to help flow my creative juices.
That's not to say they are a bad company, in fact, it's quite refreshing that on the financial side of the equation, Pinterest is a solid financial enterprise.
They make money and aren't going to burn through their cash reserves anytime soon.
This should give some peace of mind to potential investors looking at snapping up shares of Pinterest.
Even though they are not a bad company, I cannot promote them as a firm revolutionizing technology in the way we know it, they certainly don’t, and never will, at least at the current pace of innovation.
Pinterest derives almost 100% of its revenue from digital ads à la Facebook, they do not sell anything and much like Facebook, the user is the product by way of mining private data and selling them over to third-party ad agencies who subsequently sell targeted ads on Pinterest’s platform.
As I read through Pinterest’s S-1 filing with the SEC, an overwhelming portion of the content is reserved for the litany of regulatory risks that serving digital ads, curating others' content, and the international risks that pose to Pinterest growth story.
As with most tech growth stories, this particular narrative must orbit around the strength of incessantly growing its domestic and international user base.
I surmise that part of the reason they desire to go public is because of the 265 million in global quarterly monthly users have reached the high watermark.
Therefore, this calculated risk of going public is entirely justified as the cash out for the venture capitalist and private owners that invested in this company as a burgeoning toddler.
Or the owners see catastrophic downside from the regulatory landscape which has been increasingly volatile in the past few quarters and wish to get out as soon as they can.
Let's make no mistake about this, Pinterest does not control its own destiny, and their success will be based upon external factors that they cannot control.
Some of these factors have already reared their ugly head, the most relevant example was when Google (GOOGL) changed its image search algorithm which disrupted Pinterest’s image function.
This was an example of third-party content originators clamping down on their willingness to allow Pinterest to populate content on their proprietary platform, and the lack of availability of content or the decreasing nature of it will sting the hope of increasing web traffic on Pinterest going forward.
Pinterest has clearly disclosed in its IPO filing that they are reliant on crawling third-party search engine services for third-party photos, this content is curated into their platform and credited to the original user.
I would classify this type of technology as unimpressively low grade and Pinterest will be susceptible to many more possible disruptions in the future.
In layman terms, if the stars do not align, Pinterest will be the first to feel it, and strategically speaking, this is a poor position to strategically operate from.
If Pinterest cannot serve the specific content that incites the tastes of pinners, this could destroy retention and engagement rates leading to a damaging downdraft of ad revenue.
Pinterest's feeble business model will certainly call for new investments in and around more innovative parts of technology.
What we have seen most successful technology companies flirt with are full-fledged recurring revenue models, and bluntly, Pinterest does not have one.
The likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Apple have pivoted hard towards this subscription model proving they can have their own cake and eat it too.
Funnily enough, Pinterest pays AWS, Amazon’s cloud arm, an extraordinary amount of money to store the pins or digital images on AWS Cloud platform to the tune of almost $800 million per year showing how beneficial it is to be on the other side of the equation.
Pinterest does benefit from a robust brand reputation and its footprint in America is quite large.
However, one group of potential customers have clearly been left out in the cold - Males.
The firm has been famous for being the go-to image platform for young mothers and generally speaking, American women born in the 1980s.
According to data analytics, it appears that content that males gravitate towards is not present on the platform and will need to be addressed going forward to grow users.
Another crucial problem that must be addressed is the lack of domestic growth in the user base.
In Q1 2018, Pinterest achieved 80 million monthly active users, however, fast forward to Q4 in 2018 and the number had barely inched up to 82 million monthly active users.
From Q1 to Q2, there was a dramatic deceleration in the number of monthly active users falling by 5 million to 75 million monthly active users.
The company blamed this on Facebook changing their password security causing users who rely on Facebook passwords and username entrance data to be temporarily stonewalled from entering Pinterest.
Millions decided to avoid the hassle and just stop using Pinterest because they were unable to enter the platform, causing major carnage to Pinterest’s ad-supported revenue model because of the hemorrhaging usership.
Unfortunately, bigger platforms such as Facebook and Google are not responsible to telegraph these structural changes in policy to Pinterest which means that this type of loss of usership could be a bi-annual or annual exercise in damage control.
Losing 10% of your user base based on someone else’s systemic changes is a bitter pill to swallow.
Investors must ask themselves why a premium search engine like Google search want to allow Pinterest to continue to curate its images for ad revenue effectively skimming off of Google’s top line?
As you have seen, Google has hijacked many of these types of business initiatives by taking on these opportunities themselves, dismantling the choke points, and going in for the kill.
The main avenue of user expansion is its international audience, and sadly, the average revenue per international user is a paltry $0.09. This number was up sequentially from the prior quarter which was $0.06.
If you compare the revenue per user with America, then it's easy to understand why the company wants to go public now.
Management presided over a sequential increase of American revenue per user from $2.33 to $3.16 in the prior quarter and the same growth will be hard to maintain and replicate spurring the higher-ups to cash out.
International growth is staring down a barrel of a gun with restricted access by governments who do not allow this type of service in their countries such as China, India, Kazakhstan, and Turkey.
The impact of these broad-based bans decodes into Europe being the only possible answer to user growth in revenue terms and total usership.
To state that Pinterest is confronted by widespread global risk is an understatement.
However, the low-hanging fruit would be squeezing more revenue out of the American user and I would guess that the ceiling would be around $7 per user in the near-term.
If management hopes to eclipse the $7 per American user, they will have to migrate into more data generative strategies such as video.
Mad Hedge Technology Letter
March 25, 2019
Fiat Lux
Featured Trade:
(APPLE’S BIG PUSH INTO SERVICES)
(AAPL), (GS), (NFLX), (GOOGL), (ROKU)
The future of Apple (AAPL) has arrived.
Apple has endured a tumultuous last six months, but the company and the stock have turned the page on the back of the anticipation of the new Apple streaming service that Apple plans to introduce next week at an Apple event.
The company also recently announced a partnership with Goldman Sachs (GS) to launch an Apple-branded credit card.
In the deal, Goldman Sachs will pay Apple for each consumer credit card that is issued.
These new initiatives indicate that Apple is doing its utmost to wean itself from hardware sales.
Effectively, Apple's over-reliance on hardware sales was the reason for its catastrophic winter of 2018 when Apple shares fell off a cliff trending lower by almost 35%.
This new Apple is finally here to save the day and will demonstrate the high-quality of engineering the company possesses to roll out such a momentous service.
Frankly speaking, Apple needs this badly.
They were awkwardly wrong-footed when Chinese consumers in unison stopped buying iPhones destroying sales targets that heaped bad news onto a bad situation.
I never thought that Apple could pivot this quickly.
Apple's move into online streaming has huge ramifications to competing companies such as Roku (ROKU).
In 2018, I was an unmitigated bull on this streaming platform that aggregates online streaming channels such a Sling TV, Hulu, Netflix and charges digital advertisers to promote their products on the platform through digital ads.
I believe this trade is no more and Roku will be negatively impacted by Apple’s ambitious move into online streaming.
What we do know about the service is that channels such as Starz and HBO will be subscription-based channels that device owners will need to pay a monthly fee and Apple will collect an affiliate commission on these sales.
Apple needs to supplement its original content strategy with periphery deals because Apple just doesn’t have the volume to offer consumers a comprehensive streaming product like Netflix.
Only $1 billion on original content has been spent, and this content will be free for device owners who have Apple IDs.
Apple's original content budget is 1/9 of Netflix annual original content budget.
My guess is that Apple wants to take stock of the streaming product on a smaller scale, run the data analytics and make some tough strategic decisions before launching this service in a full-blown way.
It's easier to clean up a $1 billion mess than a $9 billion mess, but knowing Apple and its hallmarks of precise execution, I'd be shocked if they make a boondoggle out of this.
Transforming the company from a hardware to a software company will be the long-lasting legacy of Tim Cook.
The first stage of implementation will see Apple seeking for a mainstay show that can ingrain the service into the public's consciousness.
Netflix was a great example, showing that hit shows such as House of Cards can make or break an ecosystem and keep it extremely sticky ensuring viewers will stay inside a walled pay garden.
Apple hopes to convince traditional media giants such as the Wall Street Journal to place content on Apple's platform, but there has already been blowback from companies like the New York Times who referenced Netflix’s demolition of traditional video content as a crucial reason to avoid placing original content on big tech platforms.
Netflix understands how they blew up other media companies and don’t expect them to be on Apple’s streaming service.
They wouldn’t be caught dead on it.
Tim Cook will have to run this race without the wind of Netflix’s sails at their back.
Netflix has great content, and that content will never leave the Netflix platform come hell or high water.
Apple is just starting with a $1 billion content budget, but I believe that will mushroom between $4 to $5 billion next year, and double again in 2021 to take advantage of the positive network effect.
Apple has every incentive to manufacture original content if third-party original content is not willing to place content on Apple's platform due to fear of cannibalization or loss of control.
Ultimately, Apple is up against Netflix in the long run and Apple has a serious shot at competing because of the embedment of 1 billion users already inside of Apple's iOS ecosystem that can easily be converted into Apple streaming service customers.
If you haven't noticed lately, Silicon Valley's big tech companies are all migrating into service-related SaaS products with Alphabet (GOOGL) announcing a new gaming product that will bypass traditional consoles and operate through the Google Chrome browser.
Even Walmart (WMT) announced its own solution to gaming with a new cloud-based gaming service.
I envision Apple traversing into the gaming environment too and using this new streaming service as a fulcrum to launch this gaming product on Apple TV in the future.
The big just keep getting bigger and are nimble enough to go where internet users spend their time and money whether it's sports, gaming, or shopping.
Apple is no longer the iPhone company.
I have said numerous times that Apple's pivot to software was about a year too late.
The announcement next week would have been more conducive to supporting Apple’s stock price if it was announced the same time last year, but better late than never.
Moving forward, Apple shares should be a great buy and hold investment vehicle.
Expect many more cloud-based services under the umbrella of the Apple brand.
This is just the beginning.
Mad Hedge Technology Letter
March 21, 2019
Fiat Lux
Featured Trade:
(THE ALPHABET NO-BRAINER)
(GOOGL)
Buy Alphabet (GOOGL).
That is the obvious takeaway from the European Union disciplining Alphabet.
EU regulators levied a $1.7 billion fine because of breaches of anti-trust law.
It’s the third time the company has been caught out over unfair practices, but let's be honest about it, the internet is a dirty game and rife with firms cutting corners wherever they can get an edge.
Google search is incentivized to thwart third-party companies hoping to carve out ad revenue on the back of Google's assets.
I commend the EU for stepping up and scolding these big tech companies when stateside they have been allowed to run riot doing whatever they please.
It's gotten to the point where these companies are larger than governments themselves and hold enough power to crush small countries in its wake.
The pitiful thing about this whole ordeal is that it shows how little sway governments hold on these monster tech companies now.
Not only are they too big to fail, but too big to regulate.
Google will keep doing what it does, raking in ad revenue because of the stranglehold they have on global eyeballs.
So let’s diagnose this for what it is - a slight slap on the wrist.
There will be many more fines down the road, but who cares, Alphabet will just cut them a check.
A fine of $1.7 billion is chump change if you consider they pulled in over $32 billion in digital advertising last quarter alone.
Google was penalized for initially forcing websites to sign exclusivity contracts promising flourishing websites not to work with other search engines.
In 2009, Google upped the ante by paying off these popular third-party websites to not allow alternative search engines to display their website in searches.
Expectedly, these websites lapped up the extra revenue and had no complaints.
The last thing a dominant website wants to do is to irate Google who they are reliant on for the bulk of revenue.
Protecting your customers and shielding them from outside competition is nothing new.
This sort of business practice has been going on since the beginning of time.
Google has no incentive to change its business model to accommodate EU law because retrospective fines of this paltry amount will not force them to substantially transform their ad business.
Heftier fines could come its way in the EU as the Europeans are intent on tackling digital privacy, but the push hardly disrupts Google and the direction they are headed in.
The Android platform and Google's bundle of apps are monopolies that command 80% of the European market share on consumer devices.
Google claims that it stopped this illegal, underhanded practice in 2016. However, in the bigger scheme of things, Google will, by default, benefit naturally from the strategic position they hold in the tech ecosystem.
Therefore, this convoluted regulatory cat-and-mouse game with the European Commission will continue because at the end of the day, Google's positive network effect becomes stronger with age and assets under its umbrella of services are inclined to possess an advantage over companies that aren't linked with Google in a financially incentivized way.
This issue seeps deeper with Stadia, Google’s new attempt at revolutionizing gaming with native cloud-based gaming.
If Google directly connects with gamers via Google Chrome and is incentivized to push in-house gaming ad revenue through this platform, then why would Google search ever allow outside consumers to be able to find relevant search results about other gaming companies if they aren’t profiting directly.
It's a conflict of interest that Google will find itself knee-deep in.
For your information, Stadia will initially only be available on Google Chrome and on Android devices, you’re out of luck if you use Safari.
And what if a company such as Nintendo wants to post ads on Google Stadia via Google Chrome, can Google just say no because they don’t want to feed the enemy?
Google is on record for saying that it will give companies a fair shot to market different search engines and even give more clout to third-party shopping networks.
But by no means does this mean Google will voluntarily give up their cash cow.
Any change would be ornamental at best, and at the worst, Google would just stonewall the initiative and kick the can down the road eventually hoping the EU fine will be less than the last one.
For any small company, this would be disastrous, but Google is no peon.
Shares rose on the news of the EU fine as investors cheered from the sidelines that this chapter in Google's penalties and fines ledger is temporarily over.
It's funny to say that a $1.7 billion fine effectively meant Google came away from the situation unscathed, but that is where we are at with this type of company at this point in history.
This year is shaping up to be an overly positive year for Alphabet as they venture into gaming and have an interesting mix of high growth divisions such as YouTube.
They have even started to sell its self-driving sensors through its Waymo division.
I almost feel my spine tingle as I say this, but Google might be the most innovative company of 2019 following in the footsteps of Amazon’s innovative rampage in 2018.
Alphabet can't stay out of the news and being berated for being too dominant in Europe is a problem that many smaller companies wish they could have.
In the short-term, I initiated a bullish call on Google and shares have run up quite significantly since that call.
Wait for a pullback to locate an entry point, but I can't imagine shares going back under $1,000 in 2019 unless there is some type of catastrophic black swan event that roils the broader market.
STAY AWAY FROM MY AD REVENUE!
