Tag Archives: Marketing

Studio Ghibli to Release Hayao Miyazaki’s Final Film ‘How Do You Live?’ With No Trailer, No Promotional Marketing – Hollywood Reporter

  1. Studio Ghibli to Release Hayao Miyazaki’s Final Film ‘How Do You Live?’ With No Trailer, No Promotional Marketing Hollywood Reporter
  2. Ghibli’s Toshio Suzuki: No Promotion for Upcoming How Do You Live Movie Anime Corner
  3. Studio Ghibli Chooses a Unique Approach to Promote Hayao Miyazaki’s ‘How Do You Live?’ Collider
  4. ‘How Do You Live?’: Studio Ghibli opts unique strategy to promote Hayao Miyazaki’s final film The Hindu
  5. Studio Ghibli’s new anime film will see no advance publicity Sportskeeda
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

A-B marketing reputation takes a huge hit with Bud Light misstep – St. Louis Post-Dispatch

  1. A-B marketing reputation takes a huge hit with Bud Light misstep St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  2. Bud Light’s Dylan Mulvaney controversy deepens: Chicago gay bars roar at beer maker’s ‘abandonment’ of cause Fox Business
  3. ‘Not a formal campaign’: Anheuser-Busch distanced itself from the Bud Light controversy — says it was one camp, one post, one influencer. But is it enough to win back drinkers? Yahoo Finance
  4. Bud Light’s ill-fated campaign The Week
  5. Leftists slam Bud Light for cancelling transgender activist promotion, call for boycott Western Standard
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Bud Light to spend ‘heavily’ on marketing after Dylan Mulvaney controversy: report – Fox Business

  1. Bud Light to spend ‘heavily’ on marketing after Dylan Mulvaney controversy: report Fox Business
  2. Bar loses customers after warning patrons it will ‘not tolerate intolerance’ among guests about Bud Light Fox News
  3. Beer boycott hitting Bud Light: Report says Bud Light pours down after conservative boycott CNBC Television
  4. Bud Light to spend ‘heavily’ on marketing blitz after Dylan Mulvaney disaster New York Post
  5. Anheuser-Busch execs ‘held closed-door meeting with beer distributors’ following Dylan Mulvaney saga Daily Mail
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Meta stock spikes despite earnings miss, as Facebook hits 2 billion users for first time and sales guidance quells fears

Meta Platforms Inc. shares soared in after-hours trading Wednesday despite an earnings miss, as the Facebook parent company guided for potentially more revenue than Wall Street expected in the new year and promised more share repurchases amid cost cuts.

Meta
META,
+2.79%
said it hauled in $32.17 billion in fourth-quarter revenue, down from $33.67 billion a year ago but stronger than expectations. Earnings were $4.65 billion, or $1.76 a share, compared with $10.3 billion, or $3.67 a share, last year.

Analysts polled by FactSet expected Meta to post fourth-quarter revenue of $31.55 billion on earnings of $2.26 a share, and the beat on sales coincided with a revenue forecast that also met or exceeded expectations. Facebook Chief Financial Officer Susan Li projected first-quarter sales of $26 billion to $28.5 billion, while analysts on average were projecting first-quarter sales of $27.2 billion.

Shares jumped more than 18% in after-hours trading immediately following the release of the results, after closing with a 2.8% gain at $153.12.

Alphabet Inc.’s
GOOGL,
+1.61%

GOOG,
+1.56%
Google and Pinterest Inc.
PINS,
+1.56%
benefited from Meta’s results, with shares for each company rising 4% in extended trading Wednesday.

“Our community continues to grow and I’m pleased with the strong engagement across our apps. Facebook just reached the milestone of 2 billion daily actives,” Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement announcing the results. “The progress we’re making on our AI discovery engine and Reels are major drivers of this. Beyond this, our management theme for 2023 is the ‘Year of Efficiency’ and we’re focused on becoming a stronger and more nimble organization.”

Read more: Snap suffers worst sales growth yet in holiday quarter, stock plunges after earnings miss

Facebook’s 2 billion-user milestone was slightly better than analysts expected for user growth on Meta’s core social network. Daily active users across all of Facebook’s apps neared, but did not crest, another round number, reaching 2.96 billion, up 5% from a year ago.

Meta has been navigating choppy ad waters as it copes with increasing competition from TikTok and fallout from changes in Apple Inc.’s
AAPL,
+0.79%
ad-tracking system in 2021 that punitively harmed Meta, costing it potentially billions of dollars in advertising sales. Meta has invested heavily in artificial-intelligence tools to rev up its ad-targeting systems and making better recommendations for users of its short-video product Reels, but it laid off thousands of workers after profit and revenue shrunk in recent quarters.

The cost cuts seemed to pay off Wednesday. While Facebook missed on its earnings, it noted that the costs of its layoffs and other restructuring totaled $4.2 billion and reduced the number by roughly $1.24 a share.

Meta executives said they now expect operating expenses to be $89 billion to $95 billion this year, down from previous guidance for $94 billion to $100 billion. Capital expenditures are expected to be $30 billion to $33 billion, down from previous guidance of $34 billion to $37 billion, as Meta cancels multiple data-center projects.

In a conference call with analysts late Wednesday, Zuckerberg called 2023 the “year of efficiency.”

“The reduced outlook reflects our updated plans for lower data-center construction spend in 2023 as we shift to a new data-center architecture that is more cost efficient and can support both AI and non-AI workloads,” Li said in her outlook commentary included in the release.

Meta expects to increase its spending on its own stock. The company’s board approved a $40 billion increase in its share-repurchase authorization; Meta spent nearly $28 billion on its own shares in 2022, and still had nearly $11 billion available for buybacks before that increase.

“Investors are cheering Meta’s plans to return more capital to shareholders despite worries over rising costs related to its metaverse spending,” said Jesse Cohen, senior analyst at Investing.com.

The results came a day after Snap Inc.
SNAP,
-10.29%
posted fourth-quarter revenue of $1.3 billion, flat from a year ago and the worst year-over-year sales growth Snap has ever reported. But they also arrived on the same day Facebook scored a major win in a California court. The company successfully fended off the Federal Trade Commission bid to win a preliminary injunction to block Meta’s planned acquisition of VR startup Within Unlimited.

Read more: Meta wins bid to buy VR startup Within Unlimited, beating U.S. FTC in court: report

Meta shares have plunged 53% over the past 12 months, while the broader S&P 500 index 
SPX,
+1.05%
has tumbled 10% the past year.

Read original article here

Thank You, Hi-Fi Rush, For Sparing Us From Video Game Marketing

Screenshot: Hi-Fi Rush

Hi-Fi Rush, a game built around the concept of pure joy, was notable last week for two things. One, it’s really, really good! And two, it achieved that rarest of video game feats: a successful surprise release.

By surprise I mean absolute surprise. One minute nobody knew the game even existed, the next it was available to download and play on Xbox and PC. In this, The Year Of Our Lord 2023, how often does that happen…to anything? Anywhere? Never, that’s how often!

As a result the game doesn’t feel like a breath of fresh air, it feels like gust blowing us off our feet, and while I don’t want to undersell any aspect of the game itself when talking about its success, let’s be honest here: this game feels so fresh not just because it’s an amazing game, but because it wasn’t wrung dry for 12 months by a drawn-out marketing campaign.

What I’m about to say here isn’t meant to directly disparage anyone working in video game marketing: you have jobs to do selling video games, and in the vast majority of cases that involves people doing very good work. Whether it’s putting together blockbuster trailers or just chatting with (potential) fans on social media, it’s a tough job and one that in the majority of cases I completely understand and empathise with, especially since the system within which they’re operating—selling games on shopfronts obsessed with preorders and wishlists—demands it.

But I’m not responsible for making a single advertising campaign. I, like you, am on the receiving end of thousands of them, all at once, everywhere we look. From previews on big sites to YouTube to Twitter to Discord anyone interested in video games on the internet is under siege from the second we log on to the second the log off. Here’s a thing, preorder it, learn more about this thing, preorder it.

I’ve covered this in my Deathblood saga pieces previously, but video game marketing always has a certain predictability to it. Not in terms of specific aspects of their campaign—a AAA blockbuster obviously has a different marketing budget to a small indie release—but in the way that they can so often be guaranteed to leave us feeling exhausted.

It’s not enough that we are shown a game’s world, genre and premise. We have to be told each major character’s backstory. Shown a lore explainer for the world. We’re told how many lines of dialogue are in the script, how many thousands of hours it might take to finish, who every voice actor is. We’re conditioned, and in many cases expected, to by the time of release be fans of a game that we haven’t even played yet. Which, of course, is the whole point.

Screenshot: Hi-Fi Rush

Imagine if, instead of appearing out of nowhere, Hi-Fi Rush had been subjected to a traditional Bethesda marketing campaign. Picture seeing it revealed at The Game Awards back in December 2021, its bright light dimmed by the weight of the bigger, more expensive games it was revealed alongside. Imagine being subjected to Chai’s worst lines as part of a character reveal trailer on YouTube, instead of warming to his Fry-From-Futurama-esque charms over the course of the game’s opening hours. What if instead of the game being able to take so much delight in revealing its cast and world on its own terms we’d had that spoiled for us already by a Meet Project Armstrong documentary?

It would have sucked! The game itself would still have been great, of course, but so much of the joy of discovery that has accompanied its release, a modern day schoolyard buzz, would have been lost. To be clear, like I’ve said already, I don’t say any of this to shame any particular worker, studio or agency involved in marketing any other video game. The trees aren’t the problem here. It’s the forest.

Which is what makes Hi-Fi Rush so special. It’s one of the only games that could get away with this. Note I haven’t called for an end to video game marketing here, or said more games should try this, because the former would be pointless (it’s a big forest!) and the latter would be reckless advice. As much as Hi-Fi Rush feels like a remastered GameCube game, and unlike anything else out there, it was developed by a noted AAA studio and published by Bethesda, then released on Xbox Game Pass so people could try it for “free”. It was blessed to be perhaps the only possible combination of style, scope and pedigree that could afford to even try this, let alone hope to get away with it.

So I don’t want to say Hi-Fi Rush should be an example. I just want to say we should all treasure this game for what it is, and how it came to us, because in both cases the circumstances are as perfect as we could ever have hoped them to be, and we may never see them align like this again. Surprises are nice, but few are as nice as a good video game surprise.

Read original article here

Microsoft’s Cloud Doesn’t Quite Cover All

Demand for Windows operating-system software has fallen with sales of the personal computers that use it.



Photo:

STEVE MARCUS/REUTERS

Microsoft’s

MSFT -0.22%

latest results are like a blast from the past—and not in a good way. 

The software titan has come a long way from the days when it depended on its ubiquitous Windows operating system. But it is still a lucrative business—enough so that a slump in personal computer sales can weigh on Microsoft’s financial results. And a slump this is; IDC reported earlier this month that PC unit sales slid 28% year over year during the December quarter—the biggest drop tracked by the market research firm’s numbers going at least back to 2015. 

Not surprisingly then, Microsoft said Tuesday in its fiscal second quarter results report that Windows revenue slid 27% year over year to about $4.9 billion for the same period. That is less than 10% of the company’s revenue now, but it is a profitable contributor given that much comes from PC makers simply paying Microsoft to bundle Windows onto their machines. Hence, operating profits in Microsoft’s More Personal Computing segment that includes the Windows business slid 48% year over year. That played a big part in the company’s total operating profit for the quarter coming about 3% shy of Wall Street’s forecasts, at $20.4 billion.   

Investors have largely learned to look past Windows these days in favor of Microsoft’s far more important cloud business. But as Microsoft’s last report three months ago proved, even that isn’t immune to the slumping global economy. Azure, the cloud computing service that competes squarely with

Amazon

‘s AWS, grew revenue by 31% year over year. That slightly exceeded Wall Street’s forecasts, but it was still a record-low pace for the business. Things also aren’t looking like they will get much better anytime soon. Chief Financial Officer

Amy Hood

noted that cloud growth moderated, “particularly in December,” and projected revenue growth of 14% to 15% year over year for the company’s Intelligent Cloud segment during the March quarter—a deceleration of 11 percentage points from the same period last year. 

Investors were at least better-prepared for bad news this time. Microsoft’s share price slipped 1% in after-hours trading following the results and forecast compared with the 8% drop sparked by its previous quarterly report. As the first major tech player to post results for the December quarter, Microsoft also casts a large shadow. It has a highly diversified business that spans corporate and consumer software, cloud services, videogame systems and even online advertising. The company even noted that the recent spate of big tech layoffs will hurt its LinkedIn business, which is a major corporate recruiting tool in the tech sector. Those layoffs include 10,000 positions to be cut from Microsoft’s own payroll–another sign that even a cloud titan can’t keep floating above the economy. 

Write to Dan Gallagher at dan.gallagher@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

DOJ Sues Google, Seeking to Break Up Online Advertising Business

The Justice Department is seeking the breakup of Google’s business brokering digital advertising across much of the internet, a major expansion of the legal challenges the company faces to its business in the U.S. and abroad.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday, the Justice Department’s second against the

Alphabet Inc.

GOOG -1.98%

unit following one filed in 2020, alleges that Google abuses its role as one of the largest brokers, suppliers and online auctioneers of ads placed on websites and mobile applications. The filing promises a protracted court battle with wide-ranging implications for the digital-advertising industry.

Filed in federal court in Virginia, the case alleges that Google abuses monopoly power in the ad-tech industry, hurting web publishers and advertisers that try to use competing products. Eight states, including California and New York, joined the Justice Department’s lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks the court to unwind Google’s “anticompetitive acquisitions,” such as its 2008 purchase of ad-serving company DoubleClick, and calls for the divestiture of its ad exchange.

“For 15 years Google has pursued a course of anticompetitive conduct that has allowed it to halt the rise of rival technologies, manipulate auction mechanics, insulate itself from competition, and forced advertisers and publishers to use its tools,” Attorney General

Merrick Garland

said at a press conference Tuesday. “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct that has severely weakened if not destroyed competition in the ad-tech industry.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Tuesday that the digital-advertising industry was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct.



Photo:

Al Drago/Bloomberg News

A Google spokesman said the lawsuit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”

“DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” the spokesman said.

By calling for specific divestitures from Google’s ad-tech business, the Justice Department lawsuit went further in seeking a breakup than some antitrust experts had expected. Shares of Alphabet fell by about 2% in trading on Tuesday.

Though largely invisible to internet users, the ad-tech tools controlled by Google facilitate much of the buying and selling of digital ads that helps fund online publishers. Google’s business includes a tool publishers can use to offer ad space, a product for advertisers to buy those slots and an exchange that automatically links bidders with webpages as they are being loaded for individual users.

Big tech companies such as Google are under a barrage from lawmakers and regulators across multiple continents who have targeted the companies’ dominance in online markets. Justice Department officials also are investigating

Apple Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued

Meta Platforms Inc.’s

Facebook unit over antitrust allegations and

Microsoft Corp.

to block its planned $75 billion acquisition of

Activision Blizzard Inc.

President Biden recently urged lawmakers from both parties to unite behind legislation seeking to rein in tech giants. The European Union also has opened cases looking at alleged anticompetitive conduct by Google, Meta and other companies.

The Justice Department’s 2020 lawsuit against Google targeted its position in online search markets, including an agreement to make Google search the default in Apple’s Safari web browser. Google is fighting the case, which is expected to go to trial this year.

Alphabet gets about 80% of its business from advertising. The Justice Department’s new suit targets the subset of that ad business that brokers the buying and selling of ads on other websites and apps. Google reported $31.7 billion in revenue in 2021 from that ad-brokering activity, or about 12% of Alphabet’s total revenue. Google distributes about 70% of that revenue to web publishers and developers.

Last year, Google offered to split off parts of its ad-tech business into a separate company under the Alphabet umbrella to fend off the most recent Justice Department investigation. DOJ officials rejected the offer and decided to pursue the lawsuit instead.

For years, Google has faced allegations from advertising- and media-industry executives, lawmakers and regulators that its presence at multiple points of the online ad-buying process harms publishers and gives it an unfair advantage over rivals. Google also operates the most popular search engine and the largest online video-streaming site, YouTube, giving rise to allegations it has tilted the market in its own favor.

Rivals say that Google’s power in digital advertising stems from a series of acquisitions Google used to build its ad-tech business, beginning with the company’s $3.1 billion purchase of DoubleClick. The FTC approved the merger in a controversial decision. Google went on to purchase a host of other startups including the mobile-advertising company AdMob.

“Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” the complaint read.

Google has said it has no plans to sell or exit the ad-tech business. It has also strongly contested claims in a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general, led by Texas, containing allegations similar to the Justice Department complaint. A federal judge denied the bulk of Google’s motion to dismiss the case last year, allowing it to proceed to the discovery stage and ultimately toward trial.

Google’s Android operating system is the most popular in the world—you can find Android code on everything from Peloton bikes to kitchen appliances and even NASA satellites. WSJ’s Dalvin Brown explains why it is the world’s most-used OS. Illustration: Rami Abukalam

Any divestiture of parts of Google’s ad-tech business would cause big ripple effects across the online advertising industry, which has recently shown signs of weakness as consumers dial back purchases in response to worsening economic conditions.

Breaking off parts of Google’s ad-tech business from the rest of the company could take years of litigation to resolve. Depending on the outcome of the case, ad-tech executives have said the results could range from a higher share of ad dollars flowing to publishers to lower overall spending because digital ads would be less efficient without Google brokering them.

The 149-page complaint makes detailed allegations about the internal workings of Google’s ad-tech operations. The suit alleges, for instance, that Google used anticompetitive tactics to build up the market share of its own ad server, which issues requests for advertisements on behalf of websites, and then used that market power to effectively push publishers into sending their ad inventory only to Google’s in-house ad exchange, AdX.

The Justice Department argues, in part, that this conduct locked out rival ad-tech providers, increasing prices for advertisers and costs of publishers.

“Google keeps at least thirty cents—and sometimes far more—of each advertising dollar flowing from advertisers to website publishers through Google’s ad tech tools,” the lawsuit alleges. “Google’s own internal documents concede that Google would earn far less in a competitive market.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Google executives worked to kill a rival online-bidding technology called “header bidding,” which the lawsuit says the company referred to internally as an “existential threat.” As part of a plan dubbed Project Poirot, the company allegedly changed its own ad-buying tools to underbid on behalf of advertisers when they turned to outside ad exchanges that used header bidding, so those rivals would lose more auctions and “dry out,” the complaint says.

At one point, Google also approached

Amazon.com Inc.,

to ask “what it would take for Amazon to stop investing in its header bidding product,” the complaint alleges, adding that Amazon rebuffed those requests.

“Google uses its dominion over digital advertising technology to funnel more transactions to its own ad tech products where it extracts inflated fees to line its own pockets at the expense of the advertisers and publishers it purportedly serves,” the complaint read.

The Justice Department case overlaps in some ways with the late 2020 lawsuit from the group of U.S. states led by Texas.

In Tuesday’s complaint, the Justice Department quotes some of the same internal communications as the Texas-led lawsuit, including how one Google executive compared the company’s control over ad-tech to the financial sector: “The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE,” referring to the New York Stock Exchange.

The case also shares similarities with an investigation that the EU’s top antitrust enforcer, the European Commission, opened in 2021, as well as one by the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority. Those probes are exploring allegations that Google favors its own ad-buying tools in the advertising auctions it runs, but also look at other elements of Google’s ad-tech business. The EU, for instance, is also looking at Google’s alleged exclusion of competitors from brokering ad-buys on its video site YouTube.

Mr. Garland said Tuesday that the Justice Department filed its own lawsuit because the federal government was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct. Federal agencies have since 2019 spent over $100 million on display ads, the complaint says. The government paid inflated fees and was harmed by manipulated advertising prices because of Google’s anticompetitive conduct, the lawsuit alleges.

Microsoft is deepening its partnership with OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and Dall-E. That has investors and analysts speculating whether Microsoft could challenge Google’s dominance in search. WSJ Heard on the Street columnist Dan Gallagher joins host Zoe Thomas to discuss how AI could affect search and at what cost.

Jonathan Kanter,

the assistant attorney general for antitrust, said while there are similarities with other lawsuits against Google, the Justice Department’s complaint is based on its own investigation that yielded “meticulous detail” about Google’s ad-tech business.

“We detail many facts, many episodes that in the individual and in the aggregate have maintained numerous monopolies,” Mr. Kanter said.

Google has attempted to settle the claims against its ad-tech business. In addition to offering to split off parts of its ad-tech business to avoid the Justice Department suit, the company last year discussed with the EU an offer to allow competitors to broker the sale of ads directly on the video service.

In 2021, the company agreed to give U.K. antitrust regulators effective veto power over elements of its plans to remove a technology called third-party cookies from its Chrome browser to settle an investigation there into the plan.

In France, Google agreed to pay a fine of 220 million euros, equivalent to about $239 million, and to improve data access to competing ad-tech companies, to not use its data in ways rivals couldn’t reproduce to settle a similar antitrust investigation in the country.

Write to Miles Kruppa at miles.kruppa@wsj.com and Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

U.S. Treasurys at ‘critical point’: Stocks, bonds correlation shifts as fixed-income market flashes recession warning

Bonds and stocks may be getting back to their usual relationship, a plus for investors with a traditional mix of assets in their portfolios amid fears that the U.S. faces a recession this year.

“The bottom line is the correlation now has shifted back to a more traditional one, where stocks and bonds do not necessarily move together,” said Kathy Jones, chief fixed-income strategist at  Charles Schwab, in a phone interview. “It is good for the 60-40 portfolio because the point of that is to have diversification.”

That classic portfolio, consisting of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, was hammered in 2022. It’s unusual for both stocks and bonds to tank so precipitously, but they did last year as the Federal Reserve rapidly raised interest rates in an effort to tame surging inflation in the U.S.

While inflation remains high, it has shown signs of easing, raising investors’ hopes that the Fed could slow its aggressive pace of monetary tightening. And with the bulk of interest rate hikes potentially over, bonds seem to be returning to their role as safe havens for investors fearing gloom.

“Slower growth, less inflation, that’s good for bonds,” said Jones, pointing to economic data released in the past week that reflected those trends. 

The Commerce Department said Jan. 18 that retail sales in the U.S. slid a sharp 1.1% in December, while the Federal Reserve released data that same day showing U.S. industrial production fell more than expected in December. Also on Jan. 18, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said the producer-price index, a gauge of wholesale inflation, dropped last month.

Stock prices fell sharply that day amid fears of a slowing economy, but Treasury bonds rallied as investors sought safe-haven assets. 

“That negative correlation between the returns from Treasuries and U.S. equities stands in stark contrast to the strong positive correlation that prevailed over most of 2022,” said Oliver Allen, a senior markets economist at Capital Economics, in a Jan. 19 note. The “shift in the U.S. stock-bond correlation might be here to stay.”

A chart in his note illustrates that monthly returns from U.S. stocks and 10-year Treasury bonds were often negatively correlated over the past two decades, with 2022’s strong positive correlation being relatively unusual over that time frame.


CAPITAL ECONOMICS NOTE DATED JAN. 19, 2023

“The retreat in inflation has much further to run,” while the U.S. economy may be “taking a turn for the worse,” Allen said. “That informs our view that Treasuries will eke out further gains over the coming months even as U.S. equities struggle.” 

The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
TLT,
-1.62%
has climbed 6.7% this year through Friday, compared with a gain of 3.5% for the S&P 500
SPX,
+1.89%,
according to FactSet data. The iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF
TLH,
-1.40%
rose 5.7% over the same period. 

Charles Schwab has “a pretty positive view of the fixed-income markets now,” even after the bond market’s recent rally, according to Jones. “You can lock in an attractive yield for a number of years with very low risk,” she said. “That’s something that has been missing for a decade.”

Jones said she likes U.S. Treasurys, investment-grade corporate bonds, and investment-grade municipal bonds for people in high tax brackets. 

Read: Vanguard expects municipal bond ‘renaissance’ as investors should ‘salivate’ at higher yields

Keith Lerner, co-chief investment officer at Truist Advisory Services, is overweight fixed income relative to stocks as recession risks are elevated.

“Keep it simple, stick to high-quality” assets such as U.S. government securities, he said in a phone interview. Investors start “gravitating” toward longer-term Treasurys when they have concerns about the health of the economy, he said.

The bond market has signaled concerns for months about a potential economic contraction, with the inversion of the U.S. Treasury market’s yield curve. That’s when short-term rates are above longer-term yields, which historically has been viewed as a warning sign that the U.S. may be heading for a recession.

But more recently, two-year Treasury yields
TMUBMUSD02Y,
4.193%
caught the attention of Charles Schwab’s Jones, as they moved below the Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rate. Typically, “you only see the two-year yield go under the fed funds rate when you’re going into a recession,” she said.

The yield on the two-year Treasury note fell 5.7 basis points over the past week to 4.181% on Friday, in a third straight weekly decline, according to Dow Jones Market Data. That compares with an effective federal funds rate of 4.33%, in the Fed’s targeted range of 4.25% to 4.5%. 

Two-year Treasury yields peaked more than two months ago, at around 4.7% in November, “and have been trending down since,” said Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research, in a note emailed Jan. 19. “This further confirms that markets strongly believe the Fed will be done raising rates very shortly.”

As for longer-term rates, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note
TMUBMUSD10Y,
3.479%
ended Friday at 3.483%, also falling for three straight weeks, according to Dow Jones Market data. Bond yields and prices move in opposite directions. 

‘Bad sign for stocks’

Meanwhile, long-dated Treasuries maturing in more than 20 years have “just rallied by more than 2 standard deviations over the last 50 days,” Colas said in the DataTrek note. “The last time this happened was early 2020, going into the Pandemic Recession.” 

Long-term Treasurys are at “a critical point right now, and markets know that,” he wrote. Their recent rally is bumping up against the statistical limit between general recession fears and pointed recession prediction.”

A further rally in the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF would be “a bad sign for stocks,” according to DataTrek.

“An investor can rightly question the bond market’s recession-tilting call, but knowing it’s out there is better than being unaware of this important signal,” said Colas.   

The U.S. stock market ended sharply higher Friday, but the Dow Jones Industrial Average
DJIA,
+1.00%
and S&P 500 each booked weekly losses to snap a two-week win streak. The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite erased its weekly losses on Friday to finish with a third straight week of gains.

In the coming week, investors will weigh a wide range of fresh economic data, including manufacturing and services activity, jobless claims and consumer spending. They’ll also get a reading from the personal-consumption-expenditures-price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge. 

‘Backside of the storm’

The fixed-income market is in “the backside of the storm,” according to Vanguard Group’s first-quarter report on the asset class.

“The upper-right quadrant of a hurricane is called the ‘dirty side’ by meteorologists because it is the most dangerous. It can bring high winds, storm surges, and spin-off tornadoes that cause massive destruction as a hurricane makes landfall,” Vanguard said in the report. 

“Similarly, last year’s fixed income market was hit by the brunt of a storm,” the firm said. “Low initial rates, surprisingly high inflation, and a rate-hike campaign by the Federal Reserve led to historic bond market losses.”

Now, rates might not move “much higher,” but concerns about the economy persist, according to Vanguard. “A recession looms, credit spreads remain uncomfortably narrow, inflation is still high, and several important countries face fiscal challenges,” the asset manager said. 

Read: Fed’s Williams says ‘far too high’ inflation remains his No. 1 concern

‘Defensive’

Given expectations for the U.S. economy to weaken this year, corporate bonds will probably underperform government fixed income, said Chris Alwine, Vanguard’s global head of credit, in a phone interview. And when it comes to corporate debt, “we are defensive in our positioning.”

That means Vanguard has lower exposure to corporate bonds than it would typically, while looking to “upgrade the credit quality of our portfolios” with more investment-grade than high-yield, or so-called junk, debt, he said. Plus, Vanguard is favoring non-cyclical sectors such as pharmaceuticals or healthcare, said Alwine.  

There are risks to Vanguard’s outlook on rates. 

“While this is not our base case, we could see a Fed, faced with continued wage inflation, forced to raising a fed funds rate closer to 6%,” Vanguard warned in its report. The climb in bond yields already seen in the market would “help temper the pain,” the firm said, but “the market has not yet begun to price such a possibility.”

Alwine said he expects the Fed will lift its benchmark rate to as high as 5% to 5.25%, then leave it at around that level for possibly two quarters before it begins easing its monetary policy. 

“Last year, bonds were not a good diversifier of stocks because the Fed was raising rates aggressively to address the inflation concerns,” said Alwine. “We believe the more typical correlations are coming back.”

Read original article here

Chips Are the New Oil and America Is Spending Billions to Safeguard Its Supply

Only in the past two years has the U.S. fully grasped that semiconductors are now as central to modern economies as oil.

In the digitizing world, power tools commonly come with Bluetooth chips that track their locations. Appliances have added chips to manage electricity use. In 2021, the average car contained about 1,200 chips worth $600, twice as many as in 2010.

The supply-chain crunch that created a chip shortage brought the lesson home. Auto makers lost $210 billion of sales last year because of missing chips, according to consulting firm AlixPartners. Competition with China has stoked concerns that it could dominate key chip sectors, for either civilian or military uses, or even block U.S. access to components.

Now the government and companies are spending billions on a frenetic effort to build up domestic manufacturing and safeguard the supply of chips. Since 2020, semiconductor companies have proposed more than 40 projects across the country worth nearly $200 billion that would create 40,000 jobs, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association.

It’s a big bet on an industry that is defining the contours of international economic competition and determining countries’ political, technological and military advantage.

“Where the oil reserves are located has defined geopolitics for the last five decades,”

Intel Corp.

INTC -0.59%

Chief Executive

Pat Gelsinger

declared at a Wall Street Journal conference in October. “Where the chip factories are for the next five decades is more important.”

President Biden at the groundbreaking ceremony for a new Intel semiconductor manufacturing facility in Ohio in September.



Photo:

James D. DeCamp/Zuma Press

As oil became a linchpin of industrial economies in the 1900s, the U.S. became one of the world’s largest producers. Securing the semiconductor supply is more complicated. While one barrel of oil is much like another, semiconductors come in a bewildering range of types, capabilities and costs and depend on a multilayered supply chain spanning thousands of inputs and numerous countries. Given the economies of scale, the U.S. can’t produce all of these itself.

“There’s zero leading-edge production in the U.S.,” said Mike Schmidt, who heads the Department of Commerce office overseeing the implementation of the Chips and Science Act, signed into law by President Biden in August, which directs $52 billion in subsidies to semiconductor manufacturing and research. “We are talking about making the U.S. a global leader in leading-edge production and creating self-sustaining dynamics going forward. There’s no doubt it’s a very ambitious set of objectives.”

The recent shortages that hurt the most didn’t necessarily involve the most expensive chips.

Jim Farley,

Ford Motor Co.

’s chief executive, told a gathering of chip executives in San Jose, Calif., in November that factory workers, meaning workers in North America, had worked a full week only three times since the beginning of that year because of chip shortages. A lack of simple chips, including 40-cent parts needed for windshield-wiper motors in F-150 pickup trucks, left it 40,000 vehicles short of production targets.

Until 2014, machines that treat sleep apnea made by San Diego-based

ResMed Inc.

each contained just one chip, to handle air pressure and humidity. Then ResMed started putting cellular chips into the devices that beamed nightly report cards on users’ sleep patterns to their smartphones and to their doctors.

As a result, regular usage by users climbed from just over half to about 87%. Because mortality is lower for sleep-apnea sufferers who consistently use their devices, a relatively simple chip could help save lives.

An employee assembled ResMed’s sleep apnea devices in Singapore on Dec. 27. Ore Huiying for The Wall Street Journal
ResMed redesigned its machines during the chip shortage. Ore Huiying for The Wall Street Journal

ResMed’s sleep apnea devices are assembled in Singapore. Ore Huiying for The Wall Street Journal

ResMed couldn’t get enough of the cellular chips during the chip shortage when demand for its machines went up, in part because a competitor’s devices were recalled. Some suppliers reneged on supply agreements. Patients faced monthslong waits.

Chief Executive

Mick Farrell

said he implored longstanding suppliers to give priority to his equipment, though his orders were relatively small. “I asked for more, more and more, and to please prioritize us,” he said. “This is a case of life and death—we’re not just asking for something that makes you feel better.”

The company redesigned its machines, which are assembled in Singapore and Sydney, to replace the chips in short supply with others more readily available. It sought out new chip suppliers. It even rolled back the clock and released a version of a device without the cellular chip.

Though the chip shortage has abated somewhat and the company’s newest breathing devices have the cellular chip back, Mr. Farrell worries chip supply could be a bottleneck.

In May, he was one of a group of medical-technology CEOs who pleaded with Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo on a conference call for help. Ms. Raimondo’s staff asked other federal agencies to designate medical equipment as essential and helped connect buyers directly to manufacturers to bypass distributors.

Such pleas also lent urgency to the Biden administration’s efforts, led by Ms. Raimondo, to pass the Chips and Science Act. The U.S. has long been leery of industrial policy, under which the government rather than the market steers resources to particular industries. Many economists criticize industrial policy as picking winners. But many Republican and Democratic legislators argue that semiconductors should be an exception because, like oil, they have vital civilian and military uses.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo in July.



Photo:

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Soon after the act passed, Intel, which had pushed Congress to pass the legislation for two years, broke ground on a $20 billion project in Ohio. The Commerce Department will announce guidelines next month for how the law’s manufacturing subsidies will be awarded.

American scientists and engineers invented and commercialized semiconductors starting in the 1940s, and today U.S. companies still dominate the most lucrative links in the semiconductor supply chain: the design of chips, software tools that translate those designs into actual semiconductors, and, with competitors in Japan and the Netherlands, the multimillion-dollar machines that etch chip designs onto wafers inside fabrication plants, or fabs.

But the actual fabrication of semiconductors has been increasingly outsourced to Asia. The U.S. share of global chip manufacturing has eroded, from 37% in 1990 to 12% in 2020, while mainland China’s share has gone from around zero to about 15%, according to Boston Consulting Group and SIA. Taiwan and South Korea each accounted for a little over 20%.

The most cutting-edge manufacturers of advanced logic chips, the brains of computers, smartphones and servers, are

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.

—a foundry that makes chips designed by others—and South Korea-based

Samsung

Electronics Co. Intel comes in third. Memory chips are primarily made in Asia by U.S.- and Asian-headquartered companies. Lower-end analog chips, which often perform just a few tasks in consumer and industrial products, are produced around the world.




Region’s Share of activity

Circuit designs

and software

CPUs and other

digital chips

Activity’s Share of total

Data storage and

computer memory

Equipment used

to make chips

Chip-manufacturing

materials

Chip assembly

and testing

Chip makers are spending billions on new factories that could boost the country’s share of manufacturing…

…but significant obstacles remain, including slow growth in the number of U.S. engineering students.

U.S. semiconductor investments in the next 10 years

Citizenship of graduate students and postdoctoral appointees in U.S. engineering programs

Materials/

suppliers

$9 billion

U.S. citizens

and permanent

residents

Chip-making

factories

$186.6 billion

Region’s Share of activity

Circuit designs

and software

CPUs and other

digital chips

Activity’s Share of total

Data storage and

computer memory

Equipment used

to make chips

Chip-manufacturing

materials

Chip assembly

and testing

Chip makers are spending billions on new factories that could boost the country’s share of manufacturing…

…but significant obstacles remain, including slow growth in the number of U.S. engineering students.

Citizenship of graduate students and postdoctoral appointees in U.S. engineering programs

U.S. semiconductor investments in the next 10 years

Materials/

suppliers

$9 billion

U.S. citizens

and permanent

residents

Chip-making

factories

$186.6 billion

Region’s Share of activity

Circuit designs

and software

CPUs and other

digital chips

Activity’s Share of total

Data storage and

computer memory

Equipment used

to make chips

Chip-manufacturing

materials

Chip assembly

and testing

Chip makers are spending billions on new factories that could boost the country’s share of manufacturing…

…but significant obstacles remain, including slow growth in the number of U.S. engineering students.

Citizenship of graduate students and postdoctoral appointees in U.S. engineering programs

U.S. semiconductor investments in the next 10 years

Materials/

suppliers

$9 billion

U.S. citizens and

permanent residents

Chip-making

factories

$186.6 billion

Region’s Share

of activity

Circuit designs

and software

CPUs and other

digital chips

Activity’s Share of total

Data storage

and computer

memory

Equipment used

to make chips

Chip-manufacturing

materials

Chip assembly

and testing

Chip makers are spending billions on new factories that could boost the country’s share of manufacturing…

U.S. semiconductor investments in the next 10 years

Materials/

suppliers

$9 billion

Chip-making

factories

$186.6 billion

…but significant obstacles remain, including slow growth in the number of U.S. engineering students.

Citizenship of graduate students and postdoctoral appointees in U.S. engineering programs

U.S. citizens

and permanent

residents

Region’s Share

of activity

Circuit designs

and software

CPUs and other

digital chips

Activity’s Share of total

Data storage

and computer

memory

Equipment used

to make chips

Chip-manufacturing

materials

Chip assembly

and testing

Chip makers are spending billions on new factories that could boost the country’s share of manufacturing…

U.S. semiconductor investments in the next 10 years

Materials/

suppliers

$9 billion

Chip-making

factories

$186.6 billion

…but significant obstacles remain, including slow growth in the number of U.S. engineering students.

Citizenship of graduate students and postdoctoral appointees in U.S. engineering programs

U.S. citizens

and permanent

residents

The concentration of so much chip production in three hot spots—China, Taiwan and South Korea—unsettles U.S. military and political leaders. They worry that if China achieved dominance in leading-edge semiconductors, on its own or by invading Taiwan, it would threaten the U.S. economy and national security in a way Japan, an ally, didn’t when it briefly dominated semiconductor manufacturing in the 1980s.

Starting around 2016, U.S. officials began blocking Chinese efforts to procure front-line chip companies and technology. Many in Washington were blindsided last July when a Canadian research firm reported that China’s largest chip maker,

Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp.

, had begun to manufacture 7-nanometer chips—a level of sophistication thought beyond its ability.

With little warning, on Oct. 7, the U.S. government installed the broadest-ever restrictions on chip-related exports to China. The U.S. had long been willing to let Chinese semiconductor capabilities advance, as long as the U.S. maintained a lead. The new controls go much further, seeking to hold China in place while the U.S. and its allies race ahead.

A ceremony marked the beginning of bulk production of 3-nanometer chips at a Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. facility in Taiwan on Dec. 29. Lam Yik Fei/Bloomberg News
A circuit board on display at Macronix International Co. in Taiwan. Annabelle Chih/Getty Images

A ceremony marked the beginning of bulk production of 3-nanometer chips at a Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. facility in Taiwan on Dec. 29, left. A circuit board on display at Macronix International Co. in Taiwan, right. Lam Yik Fei/Bloomberg News; Annabelle Chih/Getty Images

Meanwhile, U.S. officials hope federal subsidies will lead to factories that are sufficiently large and advanced to remain competitive and profitable long into the future. “We have got to figure out a way through every piece of leverage we have…to push these companies to go bigger,” Ms. Raimondo said in an interview. “I need Intel to think about taking that $20 billion facility in Ohio and making it a $100 billion facility. We’ve got to convince TSMC or Samsung that they can go from 20,000 wafers a month to 100,000 and be successful and profitable in the United States. That’s the whole game here.”

That ambition comes at a delicate time for chip makers, many of whom have seen a sharp drop in demand for electronics that were hot during the early days of the pandemic. Intel is paring capital spending amid the slump, and TSMC said this week that weak demand could lead it to cut capital expenditures this year.

To defray the chip companies’ investment needs, Ms. Raimondo has approached private infrastructure investors about participating in chip projects, modeled on

Brookfield Asset Management Inc.’s

co-investment in Intel’s Arizona fabs. Last November she pitched the idea to 700 money managers at an investment conference in Singapore organized by Barclays Bank.

She also approached chip customers including

Apple Inc.

about buying chips these fabs produce. “We will need big customers to give commitments to purchase [the fabs’ output], which will help de-risk deals and show there is a market for these chips,” she said.

Those efforts appeared to pay off in December when TSMC announced it would up its investment to $40 billion in leading-edge chips at a facility already being built on a vast scrubby area north of Phoenix. Formerly home to wild burros and coyotes, it now teems with construction cranes and takes delivery of some of the most advanced manufacturing equipment in the world.

At a ceremony that month attended by Mr. Biden and top administration officials, including Ms. Raimondo, Apple Chief Executive

Tim Cook

and

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

chief

Lisa Su

pledged to buy some of the facility’s output.

Workers at TSMC’s manufacturing facility in Phoenix in December.



Photo:

Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Still, TSMC told the Commerce Department in a public letter that despite excitement about its plans and local, state and potentially federal subsidies, costs were higher than if a similar operation were built at home.

Morris Chang,

TSMC’s founder, said in November that the differential could be 50%. TSMC said it sent more than 600 American engineers to Taiwan for training.

Outside the U.S., Europe has its own plans to double its share of global production over about 10 years, while authorities in Taiwan, China and other Asian nations are pouring money into the sector. TSMC, in addition to its Arizona project, is building a chip plant in Japan and is looking at potential investments in Europe.

The high cost and scarcity of qualified labor in the U.S. has hampered previous efforts to reshore electronics manufacturing. Mung Chiang, president of Purdue University in Indiana, said computer and engineering students are drawn to chip design or software, areas where American companies are leaders, rather than manufacturing.

“Even if they say, ‘Yes, semiconductor manufacturing sounds really good, I want to do it,’ well, where can they learn the real, live experience?”

In response, Purdue has created a dedicated semiconductor program it hopes will award more than 1,000 certificates and degrees annually by 2030 in person and online. In July,

SkyWater Technology,

a Bloomington, Minn.-based foundry, said it would build a $1.8 billion fab on Purdue’s campus, prospectively supported by Chips funding.

Developing a domestic supply of talent is only half the battle. The U.S. also depends on foreign countries for many key inputs to semiconductors.

The lasers that imprint tiny circuit blueprints on silicon wafers use purified neon gas, made from raw neon typically harvested from large air-separation units attached to steel plants. Those facilities produce the neon when they separate oxygen from the air for use in steel furnaces.

There Aren’t Enough Chips—Why Are They So Hard to Make?

Since the steel industry largely moved out of the U.S. over the past half-century, there is currently very little neon gas being produced domestically. Most has come from Ukraine, Russia and China, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has left China as the world’s main source.

“Is this a risk for the U.S.? Absolutely,” said Matthew Adams, an executive vice president at Electronic Fluorocarbons LLC, a Massachusetts-based company that imports, purifies and sells neon and other gases. “A prolonged ban of neon exports from China to the U.S. would shut down a significant portion of semiconductor production after inventories are exhausted.”

A handful of other raw materials used in chip making, such as tungsten, which is transformed into tungsten hexafluoride and used to build parts of transistors on chips, are similarly sourced primarily from China. To truly untie the U.S. chip industry from China would entail undoing several decades of globalization, something industry leaders say isn’t practical.

After working for years to catch up on U.S. technology, China has developed a chip that can rival Nvidia’s powerful A100. WSJ unpacks the processors’ design and capability as the two superpowers race for dominance in artificial intelligence. Illustration: Sharon Shi

Even if the U.S. doesn’t succeed in securing the entire semiconductor supply chain, it does have a chance to reverse the recent historical pattern of losing leadership in one manufacturing sector after another, including passenger cars, railroad equipment, machine tools, consumer electronics and solar panels.

“I don’t think we’ve ever done this before: Try in a conscious, targeted way to regain market share in an industry where we were once the leader, but then lost it,” said

Rob Atkinson,

president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which advocates government support of manufacturing.

Write to Asa Fitch at asa.fitch@wsj.com and Greg Ip at greg.ip@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

New Galaxy S23 leak shows Samsung’s official marketing pics

The Galaxy S23 launch event is on February 1, which means the flow of unofficial information is only going to get faster and stronger over the next few days. We’ve seen all three Galaxy S23 models in leaked pics over the last couple of months and already know what they will look like, and the folks over at WinFuture have now leaked what they say are official marketing pics from Samsung for the base Galaxy S23.

These pictures show the phone from all the important angles. It also shows us just how much the individually placed rear camera sensors will stick out from the body. Thankfully, Samsung seems to have managed to keep the protrusion as small as possible, although the cameras are likely to still cause a wobble when the phone is sitting on a desk and used without being lifted up.

Is it just us, or are there some iPhone vibes here?

As for the individually placed camera rings, it’s part of Samsung’s efforts to keep a consistent design across all of the models of its next Galaxy S flagship lineup and even its mid-range and budget phones. And, as you would expect, the base Galaxy S23 has a flat front side and rounder corners – the Ultra model will once again have exclusivity over a curved screen, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your preference.

The base Galaxy S23 is expected to be available worldwide in four colors: Botanic Green, Cotton Flower, Misty Lilac, and Phantom Black. There will also be a couple of exclusive colors (such as light green, light blue, and light red) for those who order it from Samsung’s website, although it’s unclear which options Samsung will provide in various markets and whether all three models will come in exclusive colors.

Samsung has begun taking pre-reservations for the Galaxy S23 on its official website, and if you’re interested, you can reserve one for yourself using this link.

Read original article here