Mega-cap tech stocks like Apple (AAPL
), Amazon (AMZN
), Microsoft (MSFT
), Facebook (FB
), and Tesla (TSLA
) (if you consider that a tech stock) have been hammered over the past few days, pulling down the S&P 500 and tech-heavy Nasdaq.
During late afternoon trading Tuesday, Tesla was down nearly 20% amid news that it won’t be part of the S&P 500. Meanwhile, Facebook was down nearly 4%, Amazon and Microsoft over 4%, and Apple over 5%. And on Tuesday, workplace collaboration app Slack (WORK
) saw its stock plummet over 15% in after-hours trading following a disappointing earnings report
That’s led to rumblings that the market — which has been bounced around by these and other massive tech names — is careening toward a second coming of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s that came crashing down 20 years ago. That era was best epitomized by Pets.com, which, despite a flashy advertising campaign, flamed out just 9 months after its initial public offering.
But according to Capital Economics’ senior markets economist Oliver Jones, the rapid growth in tech stocks is different from the dot-com bubble for two reasons — most big-name tech stocks are fundamentally sound companies, and, despite recent volatility, tech stocks have provided a safe haven as other industries have faltered amid the pandemic.
Tech firms are delivering on fundamentals As Jones writes in a research note
, one of the key differences between the dot-com bubble and the current Big Tech market leaders is that, unlike many of those first-generation websites that took off, firms like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft have solid fundamentals.
“While options market shenanigans may have contributed a bit lately, the main catalyst for their rally is simply the fact that their businesses have done extremely well, in both absolute and relative terms, during the coronavirus crisis. That has not changed in the past week,” Jones wrote in note.
The tech firms aren’t just making money — they’re doing so on a sustained basis and cruising past their prior year earnings even amid a global pandemic crippling other parts of the economy.
“Bears will start to make comparisons to the [dot-com bubble] of the late nineties,” David Nelson, chief strategist of Belpointe Asset Management, wrote in a note Tuesday. “As a veteran of that war I can tell you there's little resemblance. While valuations are stretched most of the big cap secular growth stocks are profitable. That was not the case in 2000.”
Take Apple. In the second quarter of 2020
, the pandemic shuttered production facilities in China and then forced it to close stores around the world outside of Mainland China. The company still managed to increase revenue year-over-year by 1% to $58.3 billion. In Q3 2020
, the company saw revenue grow 11% year-over-year to $59.7 billion.
Amazon and Microsoft, meanwhile, have already been on a roll thanks to the performance of their cloud platforms as the pandemic spurs demand for such services. Amazon, of course, has also benefited immensely thanks to its positioning as a lifeline for essential goods when many people were stuck in their homes in the early portion of the pandemic.
Google’s parent Alphabet was the outlier, with revenue decreasing year-over-year in Q2 2020
by 2%, partly due to a pullback in ad sales.
The tech industry has been a bright spot despite recent volatility
Those performance metrics come as entire swaths of the economy have been decimated by the coronavirus pandemic including the hotel business and airlines. STR, a data analytics firm for the hospitality industry
, found the U.S. hotel occupancy was down 27% year-over-year for the week ending Aug. 29. What’s more, revenue per room was off 44.5%.
The airline industry has laid off thousands, as consumers either avoid airports entirely or are unable to travel internationally. Airlines including American (AAL
), Delta (DAL
), and United (UAL
) have even gone as far as to eliminate change fees on domestic flights to further entice consumers to fly.
The restaurant industry has been similarly impacted by the virus, first by shutdowns and then by an inability to host in-door dining in some states.
As Jones explains, there’s little else for investors to be excited about outside of Big Tech. According to his note, there’s been no surge in call options for equity indices, indicating investors were willing to buy, while there has been a slight increase in put volumes, indicating investors are willing to sell if the price is right.
“This suggests that investors’ primary concern has been protecting themselves against broad-based weakness, the opposite of the caution-to-the-wind behavior you might expect to see in a bubble,” he wrote.
In other words, investors have likely been looking at tech as a safe haven while other industries struggled amid the pandemic. Now, they’re looking to claim the profits they’ve earned in the interim.
So don’t break out those Pets.com sock puppets just yet. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fears-of-new-dot-com-bubble-overblown-205319203.html
| || | submitted by Crazybasilisk to snowrunner
So, obviously, I will be downvoted to hell, but whatever. This is the thread about expectations and reality.
I have made a simple image containing clues to the fact that SnowRunner was going to have some other paid DLC outside the Season Pass. There were some dead giveaways on the chosen business model right from the start. The key point of this post is not to defend the Apache, but steer the discussion towards the real SnowRunner problem: the lack of communication from the devs
. The info on this picture shows some very clever wording to avoid spoiling the additional paid content, intentionally or unintentionally.
So, let me spill out some facts:
The business model is a subject to change with the flow of the industry. A good example where the Season Pass still have a chunk of content outside of it. There was more of it, but I have bought it. Some forum posts about the players correctly understanding that \"microtransactions\" meant loot boxes and credits packs, complete with a confirmation from the moderator.
- Each DLC has it's own product page at every possible online store: skins, packs and phases are separated and fully rigged to be a separate purchase. There is absolutely no reason to do so if you're intending to provide all content with the Season Pass (referred as SP from now on). High Roll, Loaded Dice, Scorched and True Colors packs could have been bundled as "Season Pass Bonus Pack" or something like that, but instead of that, they are available to purchase on the pack-to-pack basis. While Phase 1 content is clearly bundled together in one product: there is no need to separately activate Lake Kovd, Imandra, three new cars and new skins. Which brings us to...
- The descriptions of the SP in store and the answer in FAQ points us to the fact that we will be getting 4 Phases of new content, including new trucks, etc or, more specifically, SP will include all it's post-launch content: the post-launch content of a Year 1 Season, advertised in the trailer, not the game entirely, that's the point of the chosen wording. This wording can potentially lead to the second SP with Phases 5-8 or more paid DLC outside the SP. When I first saw this info, I have immediately thought that, if the game will sell good enough, it will be updated for PS5/Series X and will receive the second year of content, because it seems logical enough. Released at April, 28, the end of the first SP content distribution will be somewhere around April, 2021, almost six months after the release of the new consoles, it's what makes it logical to upgrade the SnowRunner for the new hardware (read as "bump the graphics up to the PC counterpart and sell another $24,99 Season Pass for an already finished and polished game with the established playerbase") and then prepare to release the next game in the series somewhere around 2022. Overall, the SnowRunner was a success.
- The team may have made an error showcasing the Apache and other new vehicles in the trailers, but that can be a result of them trying to deal with the datamine issue and show some work in-progress. On the other hand, in the beginning of a trailer where the Apache interior was shown, it was stated the following: "I'm here to give you the look at today's first batch of content that's part of a SnowRunner's Season Pass. We'll also take a sneak peek of some of the free and paid content for the rest of the Summer" which is a clear indication of the three existing models of DLC distribution. Namely, SP content, free content and paid content.
- The trailer in question is labeled as "Season One: The Overview Trailer" and not as "Phase One: The Overview Trailer". Let's check how the other popular games are handling their seasons: it's usually a Season Pass/Battle Pass, some additional paid content such as skin packs or weapon packs and some free changes for everyone such as new modes or new ways to play. It's logical to assume that Season One consists from the Phase 1 content bundle (two new maps, three new trucks, new skins, new add-on), free content for everyone (interior customization, trials) and additional paid content. It is also quite logical to note that SP marketing has been especially focused on Phases rather than Seasons, so a Phase can be the definition of a content pack, and a Season covers all release plans for a specific release period.
- So, the community have expected the new content will be free for all SP owners (because nothing was said on that matter) while the devs were trying to navigate around the issue that there will be more paid content in the future, which won't be covered by the SP. I can see three main reasons for that: English may not be the native language for community managers, the developers falling behind the schedule due to COVID-19 and buggy launch or developers or the publisher being not entirely sure about their upcoming business model. Reasons can pretty much be combined or more complex.
- The business model can be changed on the fly, the most notable example being the addition of the microtransactions to the GT Sport, despite the devs have said otherwise. It's also common to have some small pieces of content released outside the SP (check the Cities Skylines for the most amount of content released outside the two Season Passes). Not a big deal, really, because business can change in a brink of an eye (no one could have imaged ZeniMax being bought by Microsoft following the small sales of Doom Eternal, Wolfenstein 2 and F76 launch failure). The investors and the parent company doesn't need unprofitable assets in their possession. Focus is also known for changing the business model on the fly with the example of World War Z, which has received the Season Pass after the sales have met the expectations and the content released prior to the SP was not included in it.
- The devs certainly don't see a small DLC as a microtransaction, judging from their positioning of the mobile MudRunner port. They do see a $5 expansion as a DLC, not as a microtransaction, thus making a FAQ answer about the absence of possible microtransactions a valid point of view. Because, you know, most people see microtransactions as credits packs or a shortcut to the something that can be unlocked in-game, but not as a built-up from the ground vehicle model, not available otherwise.
So, the community has chained their anger towards the Apache DLC, which was expected
, but never confirmed
to be a part of a SP. My point is that we should ask for more transparent communication, because, while the Apache was never confirmed
to be a part of a SP, it was never directly confirmed
to be not included. That's the real problem with the SnowRunner, where you need to seek the info using the all channels and not the only one, suitable for you. For example, strapping vehicles to the trailers was confirmed in the Official Discord, but it was never confirmed outside of the Discord. I can bet that some of you will heard it from me for the first time. A quick snap from the Official Discord.
As for the Apache: you don't like it then you don't buy it, nothing speaks better than money and statistics. Statistics is used on investor calls
to show if the current business model works well enough, not the angry forum posts. If the statistics will show that there is more people that have bought the Apache than those, who didn't, then you will have more paid trucks coming your way. It's simple as that. Sorry for any spelling mistakes and have a nice day, folks. Edits: added more pics and info, fixed some grammar (but not all of it, lol).