4/23/2012

High-speed trading: when time really matters


Earlier this year some information on so called Project Express, $300 million transatlantic fiber-optic line between New York and London, had appeared. This line will allow high-speed traders to execute orders in 59.6 milliseconds, and today the best time that can be achieved is about 64 milliseconds. Project Express should be finished by 2013.

However, it seems that a small company called Perseus Telecom have already found a way to reduce time to less than 60 milliseconds. Instead of building a new cable, Perseus Telecom has chosen to modify FLAG Atlantic-1 North cable. And it looks like the competition is far from over, as it is possible to reduce the time to 40 milliseconds, or even less if someone would choose to drill through the surface of the Earth rather than to run cable along the ocean's bottom. Soon we'll see.


Businessweek:
High-Speed Trading: My Laser Is Faster Than Your Laser (Perseus Telecom story)
Stock Trading Is About to Get 5.2 Milliseconds Faster (about Project Express)

4/16/2012

The IPO market's activity

While the number of IPO deals in the first quarter of the year is the largest since 2007, the deals are relatively small in size and the markets are quite calm. It seems that today the whole market is waiting for Facebook's IPO. And if it is successful enough, it may be able to kindle the growth of the internet technology industry at least.

Businessweek: The IPO Market: More Deals, Smaller Prices

4/14/2012

Apple Marvel: Part 3. Causes and consequences.

I have written two posts with my thoughts on the future of Apple's stocks prices so far. The first one was about the possible problems connected with market perception that may restrain future growth of the price. In the second post, I made an attempt to review Apple's business to find out whether the further expansion is possible. Now, let's take a look on Apple's multipliers to complete the picture.

So, the numbers for Apple are:

Capitalization $564.3 billion
Annual Profit $33.0 billion
Annual Profit/Share $35.37
Price to Earnings ratio 17.1x
Book Value $90.1 billion
Book Value/Share $96.59
Price to Book ratio 6.3x

A lot of other financial parameters can be brought, but there is no point in it.  Even these numbers are necessary just to provide the ability to compare Apple with the other companies in the field.

First of all, let's talk about Price to Earnings ratio. In different industries different values are considered as normal, but for companies in the internet technology sector, it is not uncommon to have this multiplier at the rate of 20 to 60-100 for smaller companies, and from 10 to 30 for the largest ones. For example, today Google has 18.8x P/E,  Microsoft - 11.0x, IBM - 14.8x, HP - 6.0x, Intel - 10.8x, and Amazon - a ridiculous 135.9x. So, the current value of Apple's P/E seems absolutely normal. Of course, if the stock price continue to grow, and the earnings stabilize, the value will rise. But to reach level of 30x, capitalization must exceed $1 billion, and taking into account the permanent growth of earnings from year to year, capitalization estimation should be even higher.

While P/E can be viewed as the main multiplier to evaluate whether the price paid for stocks is fair, of course there are other aspects, such as Price to Book ratio, the amount of total liabilities and its structure, the amount of dividend payments and many others. But the trick is that situation for Apple is absolutely normal in every aspect - it is by no means a healthy and solid company. Again, for example, Price to Book ratio for Google is 3.3x, 11.1x for Amazon, 4.0x for Microsoft and 11.6x for IBM, so all these companies can be compared from this point.

It seems pointless to continue trying to find any factors that can stop Apple's stocks price from further rise. While there are a lot of logical causes to doubt in the prospects of growth, from the point of finance it is definitely possible.

---------------------------------------------------

That was the last part of this story. It seems that the growth is likely to continue, but I still think that one should be very careful investing large amounts of money in Apple's stocks, especially through various funds, as risks are relatively high.


4/12/2012

Sony Corp. - Once Great Company

Sony announced that it had lost aproximately $6.5 billion in the previous fiscal year. It is the biggest loss in Sony's history. In a year, the price of stock has fallen by 40%. Kazuo Hirai, who had replaced Sir Howard Stringer as CEO, announced digital imaging, gaming and mobile phones are now core products of Sony. TVs are no longer in the list. Actually, Sony TV's production has been giving it nothing but losses for eight years, and Panasonic and Sharp appear to have to deal with the same problem.  Kazuo Hirai had already announced that TV's divisions would be halved, but this doesn't seem to be a solution. Apparently, Sony needs to rethink the whole conception of its business.

The Economist: Back in Japanese hands

4/11/2012

Santorum Exits: The Rivals For The President's Election Are Finally Defined

The Economist: Rick Santorum exits

Thank Heaven, the most awful Republican candidate ever suspended his campaign, leaving Mitt Romney to fight for Republicans on the election. To explain why Santorum was so bad, let me just quote one sentence from the Economist article:
His views on social issues were well outside the mainstream, he said odd things about sex and contraception, and he saw creeping "Islamofascism" around every corner.
I strongly recommend to read the whole article. It's relatively small and extremely well-written. And the author's attitude toward Santorum is expressed without any sign of political ethics or moderation. Maybe it is the main charm of British press, actually - it is almost entire free of political concerns, especially the Economist.

So now it is Mitt Romney against Barack Obama. While Romney has way more reasonable views than Santorum, I would strongly prefer Barack Obama to be elected for the second term. A lot of various problems may appear if Republican party wins.

The major one is the fact that most Republicans tend to support hawkish views on economics, and Mitt Romney is not an exception. While the possible rise of inflation if the ideas of some Democrats are implemented will be definitely dangerous, U.S. economics can suffer greatly if the stimulation of the economics stop now. Besides, Mitt Romney promised not to appoint Ben Bernanke for the third term. And today, when the whole world is dependent on the state of the economy of USA, this issue should bother not only American citizens.


Also there is no chance that the Dream Act and other laws connected with immigration issues will pass if Mitt Romney wins the election. Current immigration system is ridiculous and unfair. The country once created by immigrants now requires people who want to move there to spend years trying to find way to fulfill their dream. Immigration systems used by Canada, Australia or Great Britain have flaws, but they are much more transparent and the requirement are easier to meet.

If Mitt Romney wins, there may appear other changes in political and economic policies that are not so evident now. Anyway now it's almost useless to try to predict anything. Let's just wait and we'll see.

4/10/2012

Bankers Without Dignity

Great logical reasoning from Paul Krugman: Bankers Without Dignity.

Rick Warren: The only way to get people out of poverty is J-O-B-S. Create jobs. To create wealth, not to subsidize wealth. When you subsidize people, you create the dependency. You — you rob them of dignity..

Paul Krugman: My favorite entry in the comment thread, however, involved having pity on all those suffering Wall Street tycoons, who lost all their dignity when Washington bailed them out. I guess when you’re that down and out, the only thing to do is give lots of money to people who will repeal Dodd-Frank.

$1 Billion for Photos. Instagram Acquisition

Yesterday Facebook announced the acquisition of Instagram photo sharing app for approximately $1 billion in stock and cash. While it seems to be a ridiculous amount of money for the company with one product and no revenue, in fact everything is a bit more complicated.

It is true that Instagram generates no revenue and it probably won't start to. But in this deal Facebook is actually paying for users, not for the commercial potential. And Instagram has over 27 million users on iOS alone. This number can almost double in the future: new Android application released last week got 1 million new subscribers in 24 hours. So Facebook pays about $20-$40 per user. Compared to $100 price for user in Facebook (based on estimated valuation of $75-$100 billion and 850 million users), it doesn't seem to be a very high price.

Of course, the entire idea of company's valuation based on the number of users seems ridiculous. But today in tech industry users can be viewed as the most valuable asset. It is usually possible to find ways to monetize project if you have a community, but if you lose users, your company is dead. Besides, Facebook revenues on advertizing are growing every year, so it doesn't seem an issue that the new service won't make any money for some time.

Nonetheless, there is another potential problem with the acquisition. Mark Zuckerberg announced that Instagram will keep its brand and will continue to exist as a separate application. Many other companies use this strategy, but it is completely new move for Facebook, which has always been run as a single product. Is it a good decision to keep Instagram independent? We will see, but right now it doesn't seem a right thing to do.

4/09/2012

Google's Epic Battle: Searching for the New Philosophy

Years when companies had clear specializations and didn't try to produce virtually everything at the same time are long gone. And in the tech field that never happened at all, actually. Today the competition becomes even more intensive as traditional hardware companies begin to create software, old companies fall apart and new corporations are being created in college dormitories.

After Facebook success, there were many attempts to knock it off the throne, but no one succeeded. There can be different explanations to this fact, and nobody can determine which one is right. Facebook has a lot of problems connected with functions and usability, yet it's still the most popular social network on the planet.

While tech industry is more familiar with the scenario when brand new companies destroy the old ones, the situation when a giant corporation breaks into new segment and outperforms all its rivals is not completely uncommon (remember the situation with iPod in 2001, for example). And Google was viewed as a potential competitor to Facebook almost from the beginning, despite of Google's indifference for social networking segment at first, and unsuccessful efforts to break into the field (Orkut experience).

Then in June 2011 Google+ was launched. Google has a lot of supporters all around the world (including me) and many of them were happy with the start of this project. But after a few weeks, major flaws came to light, such as poor functionality and controversial design solutions, and people began to return to Facebook and other networks, only occasionally visiting Google+. Maybe the biggest problem of Google project was lack of truly innovative functions. Their search engine years ago led to the revolution in information processing, and now Google+ looked just like a polished version of current social networking projects, with only a few relatively new ideas and limited functionality.

On April 4, 2011 Eric Schmidt resigned as CEO and was replaced with Larry Page, one of the co-founders of Google. One year on, it's time to take a look on the situation in company. There is a big article on this topic in Businessweek: The Education of Google's Larry Page, if you are interested.


And here are some of my thoughts.

When Google was started, the impressive technology developed by its founders helped it to conquer the world pretty easily. Nobody on the planet had anything of that kind embodied into a real business solution. Well, that may be not entirely true; for example, russian search engine Yandex had somehow similar developments in the area, and there definitely were others too. But it is more important that Altavista and other major players on the search engine market didn't have such technologies and didn't want to endeavor to create it. Now Google is the major search engine in the world, while Altavista is almost forgotten.

After this success, Google expanded rapidly. It was positioned to be a company with unique culture, great products and the emphasis to create things to make customers happy in the first place. And for some time, everything was great. Many remember the incredibly successful launch of Gmail services, for example. There were also examples of valuable acqusitions such as Youtube and Blogger.

But with the rise of mobile devices and social networks, Google positions began to look not so firm. While Facebook was attracting millions of new users, and Apple's iPhone was approaching to the title of the most successful smartphone of all times, Google created unsuccessful and controvesial Wave, Buzz and Orkut. The situation has improved with the start of Android platform, but the beginning of the patent war with Apple and other major players has brought new problems.

In such circumstances, the start of Google+ could be viewed as a great move. And partially it was. Google executives state that the network is successful and the work on it is in full swing. Of course, there is a chance that the situation looks much better from the inside, but the 3.3 minutes the average user spends on Google+ compared to 7.5 hours spent on Facebook seem really disappointing. Besides, the intergration between social network and search engine incurred displeasure of many users and draw attention of the Federal Trade Commission.

And it's only a short list of problems and changellenges. Some of them are just usual problems that accompany every large company at some stages. Others have deeper roots connected with the entire culture of project development Google was always praised for. Today creating successful and finished products may be more important than saving its reputation as the world's center for creative research. And it won't turn Google in some kind of the evil corporation. It'll just make it more effective. Fortunately, it seems that Larry Page understands that.

To sum it up, while Google is still one of the best companies, it should evolve to meet the challenges of the changing world and keep its special place in the industry. Good luck!

4/08/2012

IPO for tech firms: U.S. over Europe without doubts

While many tech companies were created in Europe and continue to work there, a majority of them prefer to have their IPO's in U.S., and the number is only growing. Attempts to turn East London into "Tech City", to create European School for Internet Professions in France, or to start Skolkovo in Russia seem unlikely to change the situation. The problem is that in U.S. there are more experienced investors, more money for tech IPO and maybe the most important factor is that tech companies are simply valued higher there.

You can read the article in Businessweek on the topic:   Why Europe's Tech Firms ♥ New York

4/04/2012

IT - industry that never sleeps: Facebook, Groupon, Apple news

Being pretty busy this week, I'll only post links to a few topics worth reading today.

Technology sector draws a lot of attention nowadays, but this week is particularly generous on news.

After Friday report on the fourth quarter earnings (or losses, actually) Groupon lost more than 10% of stock price on Monday, proving again the inefficiency of the business model it operates, and the downgrade continues:

Groupon Tests Investors’ Faith After Revising its Earnings Downward

------------------

Apple stock price is still rising, beating $630 mark recently. I hope to finish and publish the third part of my observations on the topic this week.

------------------

And the last one - Facebook's IPO is approaching, but what will be next? There is an interesting article on the topic on Businessweek:

Facebook Delves Deeper Into Search