$0.34 (0.43%) Today
52 Week High
52 Week Low
7 Days Mentions
Morgan Stanley is a Giant Piece of Shit Company. I blew them up on Twitter and they somehow got me suspended. No idea wtf is going on. $MS is trash tho, on purpose it looks like, and James Gorman? Man? Sinking ship? I agree. I’d also Step Down if I were in your situation. Cool man. Cool
AST SpaceMobile construction work spotted at Midland: Phased array radome / climate chamber, BW3 backhaul satellite tracking antennas, SpaceMobile constellation backhaul antenna pads, and a mysterious intermediate size satellite tracking antenna.
That's so weird. FB has amazing financial results. Same with Google. I thought Apple would get crushed in the 2008 recession, MS said they couldn't see cash strapped folks spending 2X on an Apple compared to a MS laptop and Apple did amazing. ​ I don't have a single Apple product but they're the last ppl I'd bet against, no doubt.
Ok well, GameStop currently has a partnership with Microsoft where they get a cut of all digital sales on Xboxes they sell through GameStop. I bet you’d have said the same thing before that- “why would Microsoft give GameStop a cut of all digital sales for consoles sold in GameStop?” I think it’s safe to say, whatever they’re working on they have been consulting with their already established partner (MS) and other game companies.
There is no evidence they’ve signaled they wouldn’t work with GameStop on something like this. To take that stance you have to believe GameStop made this marketplace… and never even talked to those companies? You really think they went out and built the marketplace without consulting with Sony, MS (who they already have a deal with on other revenue sharing things)?
I'd never suggest a Microsoft environment is right for everyone. Startups especially have a lot of leeway. But once an org gets to a point where it's operating at scale, compliance demands alone are nearly impossible to meet without some level of MS infrastructure.
Great and all. Let me know their play when everyone buys their games on download and accessories on Amazon. Meanwhile, GME has to run hundreds or thousands of retail locations at tremendous overhead. The reason Sony and MS are pushing everyone out of retail game sales is to get rid of the middleman and their cut. Go ahead and believe. Go ahead and buy. It’s your money and GME is not for me.
What would make you think GME can beat out MS and Sony's own stores for their own consoles? It would be an uphill battle from the beginning to even get their storefront added to the consoles stores. Would need massive amounts of capital to buy out the rights to get added to them. And we are seeing EPIC games attempt to beat Steam and even with exclusives, less DRM, cheaper prices than STEAM, and literally giving away games for free they still haven't managed to take a chunk out of Steam. There is just 0 chance any reasonable person could believe that GME could fight all 3 and win. Hell GME would be lucky to even get 50% of EPIC games stores user numbers, let alone beat Steam.
There wasn't a website like chewy before chewy. Chewy competed with brick and mortar stores like Petsmart, PetCo, etc. Not Amazon. Amazon has a much more limited selection. Gamestop selling digital assets means selling their games digitally... do you really think they can beat Steam or MS/Sonys own online stores?
My opinion: Zoom is fucked unless they can find new use cases to solve. ( That's why they are adding sales intelligence features) Currently they are upselling/ cross selling to existing customers. Without Covid and recession budget cuts, people will have less virtual events. You will still need zoom for demos and webinars but your spending will be less than last year. Smaller companies may use Google. And if you are bigger enterprise, you will prefer MS Teams for security reasons if you are doing a product demo/ conducting a closed virtual session. Plus there is more competition for this space with Cisco WebEx and other Hybrid platforms. Hence Zoom may not see same revenue/ sales as last year, unless they find some other problems to solve ( Like become a video conferencing plus sales intelligence software like Zoom + Gong) and they will need to have different pricing with simple product versions for price conscious enterprises.
Agreed. I haven’t been on a Zoom-specific meeting in nearly two years. Nor WebEx or any of the other “standalone” products. It went like this: - “Ahhh COVID! We need Zoom!” - “Ahhh COVID! We just lost 30% of our revenue!” - “We need to cut costs!” - “Did you know we have video conferencing included in our MS Office suite and it works great?” - Zoom subscription cancelled by October 2020. Even if your company is on Google enterprise products, or hell, even Apple, native built-in platforms like Meets, Teams or group FaceTime will always win. Zoom is a penny stock.
The company I work for does a lot of web conferencing. We have Zoom as our in-house solution, but often our clients dictate the conferencing platform, and I’d say it’s a pretty even split between Zoom and MS Teams at this point. It’s incredibly rare that Meets ever shows up on the radar. I get the sense Meets gets most of its actual use by consumers and startups. Something else to note, Zoom is aggressively pushing their phone system, to the point it’s obnoxious. That said, their success on the web conferencing side probably does give them an inroad to sell their phone system.
It is not. For your office integration it actually works best. So you are heavily inclined to use grand ID you use MS office. Also users experiencing bad ms teams, can also come from a shitty setup in their company. At ours it is integrated with SharePoint and collaboration so you can use it rather effectively. If your company is not setup to use the other Google products using meet isn't really that helpful.
I don't think it's a buy at this price, but unlike many other stocks that blew up during the pandemic, ZM is actually solid. Be aware that their earnings are expected to pull back by roughly 30% yoy before eventually growing at a steadier pace and that them matching 2021 income is not expected until 2025 or 2026. It has gotten quite popular with the pandemic, but it doesn't actually have a moat and there's a lot of competition (Cisco Webex, Skype, MS teams just to name a few) in this place. I still think it's an interesting company to watch, but it's one where I'd like to be on the conservative side more than with some others regarding my buying decision.
Nice post and thanks for sharing. My observations FWIW: like others have said, my clients are all using either Zoom or MS Teams. Never heard of the Google one. Secondly, I am impressed Zoom was profitable when it had less than 1/10th the sales. But that growth in the middle line costs is insane.
Business world is HEAVILY into Teams since it gets bundled in with a lot of MS licensing. With that said, if I'm not doing Teams, it is Zoom. I've \*NEVER\* used Google Meets for a work meeting. (and I deal with hundreds of different companies) FWIW
>1. Its P/E is very high, especially compared to Apple, Google, MS. Some say P/E is not the right measure to compare these companies, but I am not sure why not You should not rely on PE ratio when evaluating a company such as Amazon, which reinvests much of the cash it makes into the business. It would be like saying that a person such as Elon Musk is broke because he's got little cash by looking at his bank account. It just ain't so, is it? >2. It is spending heavily on infrastructure (warehouses and cloud). Is this a continuous money sink that will always make profit margins low? Or will it at some point lead to large profits, since investments will reach a plateau? One would think that after 20+ years of operations and exceptional results of Amazon people would understand their business model. Besides the fact that there is actually nothing wrong with low profit margins, Amazon is not wasting capital by spending heavily on infrastructure. The value of such investments, as for any other investment Amazon made over the years, is to be found in the future. If you believe there is no value, then you got the answer to your question, sell the stock. >3. I like their diversification from retail, ads, logistics, cloud, alexa, video, kuiper, etc. However I am not clear how profitable some of these endeavors are, or if they will ever be. Is this an overhang for the company? There is a reason why Amazon is the world's most loved brand and regardless of how much profitable some of its "diversification" is, the business has managed to create a web of products and services that are becoming more and more interconnected with people's lives. A powerful brand is the strongest of the moats for a business.
I have no idea if Zoom is a good buy, but one thing I've noticed is a lot of people now saying "let's Zoom tonight" instead of "let's Skype tonight". Adoption has been huge in a short timeframe and MS really dropped the ball on Skype. Zoom might just survive based on being the default option of video conferencing, if they stay adaptable and continue to improve tech.
It feels the same as walking thru a russian suburb no way do i trust the CS system to allow even 1/2 their investors to log in at same time, and im not even talking gme but ALL their investors. Im sure the large brokers will lock out investors during drop later in year who use the website. I mean even f i d e l i t y ‘ s non-website, actual trading platform, active trader pro looks and feels like MS Windows from 90s
Sorry about the nominal loss. I’m not so sure they’re turning things around with LHS. I’ve got a spreadsheet kicking around that shows that they’ve kept up to overall market, or even did a little better for mg THC, but their dry flower sales have not outperformed overall market growth. They’re obviously targeting edible sales, but dry flower sales data suggests they’re losing market share to guys like TRUL and CURA. Actually, funny enough, TRUL only maintained their MS because they acquired licenses from HARV. I suppose they’re doing better than I expected though.
A reasonable bear scenario (and I'm thinking not-so-soft-landing here) would be the vicious cycle of economic stagnation leading to lower tech spend and consumer discretionary spend. Consumer isn't a huge fraction of MS revenue and the smallest by operating income in Q4 2021 and Q1 '22](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2021-Q4/segment-revenues), but there's pass-though risk in that clients who ultimately service consumers may contract. That said, I'm not quite so sure how recession proof gaming is (it's not a large fraction of their profits/revenues anyway), but I agree that Office is probably fairly recession resistant. Azure is kind of a question though, I could easily see customers leveraging the rapid scalability of the cloud in the negative sense to shrink their operations if/when their businesses contract (this goes for all cloud providers). There's obviously a lot of moving parts here, but it's reasonable to at least consider something of a perfect storm scenario (just to rationally assess risk) and scale expectations. Like all other tech though, I'd argue that there's also the consideration that this is a market that likes to punish tech valuations if they don't absolutely blow out performance numbers and project significant growth.
Lots of GOOG (split coming soon), MS, I-bonds, and good ole fashioned target retirement funds. I was lucky to sell near the top and buy real estate so I’m holding that at low rates also. Some small crypto plays in projects I like but nothing too crazy.
The Activision deal is a collosal one. MS is not going to be managing two of these at once, especially when going after too much could cause all deals to face difficulties. Netflix is a dying company with very few quality production houses in house. MS is not buying them.
If it wasn't the risk of making games (it's risky), it's selling them. You can never guarantee how a game will turn out, much less how it'll be received. Similar to movies. I guess in that sense, the best media to create is soulless mass-appealing trash, but then profits are thin. Trust me, FB doesn't want the gaming industry. MS and Sony gaming departments pretty much cut even every generation. Sony does not-bad because it sells TVs and Audio stuff. Nintendo did for a while because it kept costs incredibly low. Even then, they still have flops from time to time (WiiU). On top of that, cost of making a game has gone up a lot recently, so again slimmer margins. Revenue also isnt profit.
Used to work for MS in Securities Base Lending... I can't imagine the clown show going on right now with how many collateral calls they must be doling out left and right. Rich Mans subprime going to be littttttt as people get force sold lol
Blockchain tokens/currencies definitely have utility, and therefore value. Problem is the space is overcrowded with niche use 'coins' whose only purpose is basically to fix some bug or inefficiency in the platform they run on. IMO the moment Apple or Microsoft comes out with a blockchain platform it's game over for everyone else. The built in user base and infrastructure are just too big to compete against. Imagine how fast an MS security token/coin would catch on in the business world.
It doesn't matter if NFTs are "just Jpegs" or not, *no one wants them*. They don't solve anything that can't be done already. You don't need NFTs to be able to sell dogital stuff. Publishers don't want you to anyway because it makes them less money. Why would they support that? And why do it through Gamestop instead of directly through Sony/MS/Nintendo/Valve? Gamestop didn't sell the "stockpiled inventory" despite it being holiday season lol... That's bad news. >Gary gensler’s SEC report on GameStop specifically states that increase in price was due to demand from retail investors buying into the stock. NOT from short positions been closed FACT. That doesn't mean "shorts didn't cover", they said "shorts covered but that wasn't the reason the price went so high. https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf Page 25-27. *"staff observed that during some discrete periods, GME had sharp price increases concurrently with **known major short sellers covering their short positions**"* *"Staff also observed discrete periods of sharp price increases during which accounts held by firms **known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes** of GME shares"* They covered. SEC said it, the volume supports it, the borrowing fee supports it, the price action supports it. They probably opened new positions after the 2021 squeeze and on every pump-and-dump cycle though, so congratulations on making them a bunch of extra profit! 🤑💲
For real. Microsoft has an absolute stranglehold on the corporate world- with the exception of the marketing department of literally any company that just *has* to run Adobe products on their fuckin Macbook. There is no getting away from MS Enterprise products for the forseeable future. No one else has a product suite that even remotely touches the capability and integration of *just* M365, let alone Azure AD.
I still don’t understand what you mean by monopoly or even “virtual” monopoly. They aren’t pulling the anti-competitive shenanigans that MS has done for decades. And developer complaints about their app store mostly amount to talking points for politicians with little principle.
At this current juncture, the future looks bright. \-40M cash \-40m float \-2 drug candidates entering ph1, 1 entering ph 2 \-large addressable markets in depression/anxiety, MS, and inflammatory conditions (hi tylenol) \-impressive mgmt team that has the experience and expertise to get drugs across the finish line and to acquisition \-attractive valuation - trading for less then cash value
If you don't understand their growth proposition this makes sense. However in 2017 MS was just starting to get into the public cloud game. They have since solidified their position in corporate IT and are a clear winner for enterprise public cloud. They have only begun to grow there is still a huge.global market share for them to take.
As a former PLTR bagholder I have to say this company still isn’t a good investment (glad I sold at a loss when I did). Like others I bought into the hype of “super smart guys will change the world, this will be a $200bn tech company” - when in reality their product is basically a fancier version of Tableau or MS PowerBI. Plus their product just isn’t scaleable as they need a certain number of (highly paid) data engineers per client. Don’t get me wrong it’s not vaporware, they have a real product - it’s just that even after today the company is still very much overvalued imho. I don’t see the upside or appeal anymore as an investor even at these levels.
The problem with Zoom is that it's a fundementally flawed software. It's not just as good as Google Meet or other solutions out there. Corporations lean towards MS Teams, smaller businesses and individuals use Google Meet and Zoom has nothing to show for it. I strongly believe WFH is here to stay at least in partial capacity and that there is a tangible chance of COVID eruptions in years to come that would enhance that notion, but I would not put anything into Zoom specifically. I think SHOP is super heavily undervalued being an excellent company with strong margings/cashflow/acquisitions. There are other severely undervalued stocks. I'd take anything over Zoom, for sure.
Bro, my Dads advisor at MS was “beyond bullish” on PayPal back in December. We then bought the dip in February off of his advice. Guy just sent us a Mother’s Day card today. My moms been dead for three years… we need a new advisor.
Lmao you kids are so dumb. Renaissance is a prime brokerage client of Morgan Stanley. To think that they’d somehow have access to retail order flow that Morgan Stanley doesn’t even possess and would be using to criminally on MS’s platform instead of just continuing to be the quant powerhouse they’ve been for decades is just laughable. Learn a bit about the space you’re now in before throwing around clickbait words you’ve heard on the news lately.
If they allowed a proper profit margin instead of milking the fuck out of the local workers then maybe you would have a point, but as someone who actually has experience in this area I can confidently say you're wrong... Many of my customers were completely fine with small delays due to restrictions outside of our control. Apple weren't... And I didn't mention MS, Dell or any of the rest. They're all as bad as each other (well, maybe not as bad as Apple, but close enough).
Based on this, the poorest cities in the United States are: Detroit, MI Cleveland, OH Dayton, OH Hartford, CT Rochester, NY Newark, NJ Jackson, MS Syracuse, NY Birmingham, AL Springfield, MA Side note: several of these cities also are in the top 10 for murders per capita
True, this is an educated guess. However, it would take something extreme for nVidia, at least for the next 5 years, to lose it. They are the number one for home gamers, a market of a billion users. They are number one by developers for both games and Machine Learning. And the numbers back up the near future at least. All the cloud companies such as MS, Google, and Amazon, they buy at least 10,000 cards of nVidia per month, with some purchased exceeding $100 million for the machine learning alone. All developers today tend to write with the nvidia framework for anything in regards to graphics and ML. So with that said, if Apple or AMD or Intel come out with a chip, it would take years before the industry would switch over. AMD has been making GPU cards for a long time, and they are not even on the scoreboard with any big purchases from the cloud companies. Yes, home gamers, but the market is still quite small. Their servers drive more market than their video at this point. And, now is the time, it's fallen in half. I'm not saying it's the only choice, of course, buying Amazon, Google, Apple and others are good plays also. and once the market turns around, there will be lots of people staring at the screen, wishing they had bought in. People love to try the fast money game with buying something in hopes of a quick gain, these picks aren't for that. But I don't play shorts or so anything short term, there's no need. Playing long is actually safer, I think.
My idea is: I'd put a few trades on. 1 - choose a stock that beats the sp500 play it. 2 - play the sp 500 If you made predictions that are absurdly correct like 50-100 in stock profit and 500-700 handles in s&p profit. Someone from JPM, MS, BOA, C, or even ML will hire you or they should.