Pass P2090-032 exam with P2090-032 real questions and bootcamp

If you are needy and interested by efficiently Passing the IBM P2090-032 exam to boost your carrier, Actually killexams.com has exact IBM Big Data Fundamentals Technical Mastery Test v1 exam questions with a purpose to ensure that you pass P2090-032 exam! killexams.com offers you the legit, latest up to date P2090-032 bootcamp with a 100% money back guarantee.

Exam Code: P2090-032 Practice exam 2022 by Killexams.com team
IBM Big Data Fundamentals Technical Mastery Test v1
IBM Fundamentals reality
Killexams : IBM Fundamentals reality - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/P2090-032 Search results Killexams : IBM Fundamentals reality - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/P2090-032 https://killexams.com/exam_list/IBM Killexams : Ministry of Education launches high-tech summer camp

- Advertisement -

By Carlena Knight

[email protected]

More than 200 students from the primary school to tertiary level will take part in a summer camp put on by the Ministry of Education and the University of West Indies Five Islands.

The camp will focus on six core areas – fundamentals of drones and drone technology, robotics, augmented reality, e-sports, photography and graphic design, and mobile app and web development – all of which are linked to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, known as STEM subjects.

The four-week event was launched on Friday with top education officials in attendance.

Education Minister Daryll Matthew welcomed the programme and shared his hope that it will be rolled out across the nation’s schools.

“It is expected to be an annual event growing in leaps and bounds every year,” Matthew said.

“There are some countries where these STEM fairs are a major part of the educational offering of the country and we see no reason why Antigua and Barbuda, which is perfectly positioned in the Caribbean, having a university campus with a School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, having an institution such as ABIIT on our shores, having access to fibre-to-the-home fast internet to each and every household, there is no reason why this ought not to be the next logical step in the offering of the Ministry of Education and Sports to our people of Antigua and Barbuda, giving our young people in particular the opportunity to really learn everything the worlds holds for them where technology is concerned,” Matthew added.

Director of Education Clare Browne spoke of the advantages the camp presents to local youngsters.

“STEM education, STEM skills, now and in the very near future, will be in every, every field of endeavour if they are not already there and if these skills and knowledge are not already a required field of endeavour.

“The word out there is that 75 percent of the jobs that children and young people will have in the future will be connected to the STEM field and so it is important for a Ministry of Education and Sports to ensure that we prepare our young people for jobs that are not even invented yet, for opportunities that are not yet in place and in play,” Browne explained.

“This STEM fair is designed to stimulate that kind of interest in those areas, those skills that are going to be required,” Browne added.

The free camp will run from July 18-29. It will break for Carnival and return from August 8-19.

It will be broken up into three age groups: children aged four to 11, youngsters aged 12 to 17 years, and tertiary level students over 17.

The camp will have both a virtual and hands-on approach. Students engaged at the UWI Five Islands campus will learn the basics of computer assembly, coding, drones’ programmes and graphic design, with some having the opportunity to earn an IBM certification.

Registration is now closed.

- Advertisement -

Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:39:00 -0500 en-GB text/html https://antiguaobserver.com/ministry-of-education-launches-high-tech-summer-camp/
Killexams : Microsoft Vs. IBM: Long/Short Strategy On The Old And New IT Giants
Global connection

piranka/E+ via Getty Images

logo

Microsoft, IBM

Both International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) are among the top IT companies. IBM was the largest IT company by revenue ($7.2 bln) from the 1970s until 2007 and was not even in the top 10 in 2021. In contrast, Microsoft, which was founded in 1975, continued to grow to become the second-largest IT company in 2021 by revenue ($168 bln) only behind Apple ($365 bln).

We analyzed Microsoft and IBM’s businesses and contrasted their strategies based on product innovation, diversification, acquisition, integration, and cloud strategies to determine which company has better executed their strategies and ranked the companies against each other.

Moreover, we compared the companies in terms of their financials. In terms of diversification, we broke down its segments and analyzed its revenue growth. Also, we compared their margins in terms of gross, net and FCF margins. Additionally, we looked at both companies based on efficiency and credit analysis.

Finally, we looked at their valuation ratios and compared them against each other and their 5-year averages, as well as our in-house DCF analysis and compared it against analyst consensus. Considering their historical investment returns and dividend yields, we formulated a long/short strategy for the two stocks.

Strategies

microsoft vs ibm revenue

IBM, Microsoft, Khaveen Investments

Product Innovation Strategy

IBM was founded in 1911 but rose to the top of the tech sector in 1962 as the largest computer company with a 62% market share, as it created the first portable computer (IBM 5100). However, with the rise of IBM clones created by Compaq, competition for the company increased while its market share eroded to 32% in 1980. According to All About Circuits, IBM had tried to make clone computers redundant by developing the new Micro Channel Architecture computer architecture but, it was not even compatible with its software. Overall, the company was unable to develop a competitive advantage in software and hardware to remain competitive in the computer market due to increased competition from competitors’ compatible and cheaper products as prices of mainframe computers fell by 90% along with product innovations such as PCs and workstations from Compaq and Sun Microsystems. It held its market leadership in the PC market until 1994 before falling behind Compaq, Apple (AAPL) and Packard Bell.

In comparison, since Microsoft’s launch in 1975 and securing the contract to provide OS to IBM’s computers, Microsoft had dominated the OS market since the late 1980s with a market share of over 80%. In 2021, Microsoft continues to be the market leader with a market share of 74% in OS but is seeing increasing competition from Apple’s macOS with the strong sales of its PCs. Microsoft focused on OS with continuous innovation with subsequent product development and launches of new OS products including 15 Windows product launches (including Windows 11) while IBM only had 8 main PC product series. Also, it made deals with PC makers to supply OS to be preinstalled at discounted prices. Although it tried to run crack down on clone software and free alternatives such as Linux which continue to exist, it instead tolerated piracy of Windows OS as explained by the following quote of the potential opportunities to monetize it.

As long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. - Bill Gates, Founder & Former CEO of Microsoft

Overall, we believe Microsoft edges out IBM in terms of its product innovation strategy as it maintained its market share in the OS market with its continuous product development and more product launches than IBM, which lost its market share leadership to stronger competitors. Microsoft also established various partnerships with PC makers, which IBM failed to do.

Diversification Strategy

In 1980, IBM’s revenue from its largest (Hardware) segment was 84%. In 1993, the company decided to focus on higher-margin software businesses such as middleware and consulting, targeting enterprises along with its mainframe business. This was successful for the company as its revenues grew again from 1983. However, with the rise and shift towards public clouds, the company’s growth started to decline in 2013 as IBM began losing server hardware market share rapidly to ODM competitors for public cloud customers. Though, its Hardware segment still represented 25% of its revenue in 2021, its third-largest segment behind IT consulting (31%) and Software (27%).

On the other hand, Microsoft diversified away from its largest segment, system software (53% of revenue in 1986) into application software such as productivity and HR software. In 2021, Windows only accounted for 13% of the company’s revenues and had a 5-year average growth of 5.8% below its total average of 13.1%.

  • Diversified within the software industry with productivity software in 1983 with Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel in 1985
  • Diversified into the Media Industry with its advertising segment with Internet Explorer web browsers launched in 1995
  • Expanded within the software industry with HR software Microsoft Dynamics in 2006
  • Diversified into the entertainment industry with its Xbox business in 2001

Company

Microsoft (1986 – Non-System Software)

IBM (1980 – Non-Hardware)

Revenue Breakdown (Past)

47%

16%

Revenue Breakdown (2021)

87%

75%

Revenue (Past) ($ mln)

93

4,192

Revenue (2021) ($ mln)

146,237

43,013

Annualized Growth %

23.4%

5.8%

Source: Microsoft, IBM. Khaveen Investments

Based on the table above, we calculated the annualized growth rate of the revenue contribution of the revenue streams of Microsoft’s non-System Software revenue in 1986 and IBM’s non-Hardware revenue from 1980 to 2021. Thus, we believe that Microsoft has a superior diversification strategy with its higher annualized growth of 23.4% compared to 5.8% for IBM.

Acquisition Strategy

IBM Acquisitions

Acquisition Cost ($ mln)

Revenue ($ mln)

Microsoft Acquisitions

Acquisition Cost ($ mln)

Revenue ($ mln)

Red Hat

34,000

3,400

Activision Blizzard

68,700

8,800

Cognos

5,000

1,000

LinkedIn

26,200

2,970

PwC Consulting Business

3,500

4,900

Nuance Communications

19,700

1,931

Lotus Development Corporation

3,500

1,150 (excluded)

Skype Technologies

8,500

622

Truven Health Analytics

2,600

544

ZeniMax Media

8,100

1750

Rational Software Corp

2,100

592

GitHub

7,500

200

SoftLayer Technologies

2,000

280

Nokia (Mobile Phones unit)

7,200

1990

Netezza

1,700

190.6

aQuantive

6,333

700

FileNet Corp

1,600

422

Mojang

2,500

412

Sterling Commerce

1,400

479

Visio Corp

1,375

166

Total

57,400

11,808

Total

156,108

19,541

Revenue Contribution

20.6%

Revenue Contribution

11.6%

Source: Company Data, Khaveen Investments

The table above shows the top 10 acquisitions by IBM and Microsoft in terms of their acquisition costs and revenue. IBM made a series of acquisitions such as Lotus Development Corp for middleware software which was later divested off to HCL in 2018 for just $1.8 bln, translating to a loss of $1.7 bln. Also, it acquired PwC’s management consulting arm in 2002. Besides that, it also acquired software companies such as Cognos, Truven Health Analytics, Rational Software, SoftLayer, Netezza, FileNet and Sterling Commerce as well as hybrid cloud company Red Hat which was its largest acquisition ever at $34 bln.

On the other hand, Microsoft’s largest deal is the planned acquisition of Activision Blizzard (ATVI) for $68.7 bln to expand its footprint in the gaming market, followed by LinkedIn, Nuance Communications, Skype, ZeniMax Media, GitHub, Nokia (Mobile phones), aQuantive, Mojang, and Visio Corp.

The total revenue contribution of Microsoft’s top 10 acquisitions ($19.5 bln) is higher than IBM at $11.8 bln (excludes Lotus) but its revenue contribution is lower at 11.6% compared to 20.6%. However, Microsoft ($156.1 bln) spent more than IBM ($57.4 bln). This translates to a revenue per cost of $0.21 for IBM which is higher compared to Microsoft at only $0.13.

Therefore, while IBM divested Lotus, its revenue contribution from its largest acquisitions is still higher than Microsoft. Additionally, with a higher revenue per acquisition cost, we believe that IBM has a superior acquisition strategy to Microsoft.

Integration Strategy

IBM provides mainframe software such as containerized software, DevOps and operations management which are integrated with its server systems. Despite its expansion into software, consulting, and cloud, we believe this is its only product integration and it has not built up an ecosystem of integrated products and services. Moreover, its other segments such as software had stagnant growth of 1% and hardware’s revenue declined which we believe indicates its inability to successfully synergize the segments.

As covered in our previous analysis, Microsoft had established solid market leadership in office productivity with over 80% market share based on Gartner and we expect it to continue defending its lead with its comprehensive features and integrations with its other Microsoft products and competitive cost against competitors. Besides that, other examples of Microsoft’s integrations are:

  • Integration between Windows and Microsoft through Office Hub for easier access to documents
  • It developed the cloud-based Dynamics 365 in 2016 which is integrated with Power Platforms, Teams and SharePoint.
  • In Gaming, Microsoft focused on its gaming segment with its gaming subscription in 2017 integrated with Windows.
  • It also acquired companies such as LinkedIn in 2016 and integrated them with its Dynamics 365 and the Office suite.

Thus, we believe Microsoft, with its ecosystem with integrated productivity & HR software, gaming and LinkedIn is stronger compared to IBM (only hardware and software) and we believe it supports its growth outlook. In our previous analysis, we saw that Microsoft was the only company out of the top 3 software companies (IBM and Oracle) which had above industry 7-year average revenue growth (7.9%).

Cloud Strategy

Microsoft entered the cloud market with the launch of Azure in 2010, followed by IBM in 2011. Although both entered roughly similar periods, we compared both companies’ cloud strategies based on a comparison of their market share & revenue growth, number of availability zones, features and number of users.

cloud market share

Synergy Research, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Cloud Service Providers

Average 5-year Revenue Growth

IBM Cloud

3.1%

AWS (AMZN)

37.5%

Azure

57.2%

Google Cloud (GOOG)

47.5%

Alibaba Cloud (BABA)

51.9%

Source: Synergy Research, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Based on the chart and table above, Microsoft had strengthened its cloud market share with the highest average revenue growth (57.2%) in the past 5 years to catch up with market leader AWS which had a lower growth (37.5%). In comparison, IBM had the lowest growth among its competitors at only 3.1%. As highlighted in our previous analysis, IBM had divested its public cloud business (Kyndryl) and focused on its hybrid cloud business following its RedHat acquisition in 2019. That said, based on the data, we believe Microsoft had strengthened its positioning in the cloud market and could provide it with an advantage over IBM.

Company

Microsoft

IBM

Cloud Users

550 mln

0.0038 mln

Growth % YoY

10%

35%

Type of Users

Companies, Individuals

Companies

Source: IBM, Microsoft

To understand the rise of Microsoft’s cloud business vs IBM, we looked into the user bases of each company. Compared to Microsoft, IBM specifically targets companies while Microsoft targets both companies and individuals with its cloud. Microsoft had 500 mln active monthly users, on Azure Directory compared to 3,800 clients for IBM. However, IBM had a higher growth rate of 30% YoY than Microsoft at 10%.

Company

Availability Zones

Number of Features

Pricing

IBM

19

43

$71.27

AWS

84

60

$154.50

Microsoft

66

70

$152.60

Google

88

90

$116.10

Source: Source: IBM, AWS, Microsoft, Google, GetApp, Khaveen Investments

To compare the reach of their cloud services globally, we examined the number of availability zones by each company in the table above from our previous analysis of Oracle (ORCL). As seen in the table, Microsoft is third with 66 availability zones behind AWS and Google. However, Microsoft was still more than 3 times higher than IBM Cloud. Microsoft had announced its planned data center expansions across the US in Georgia and Texas and across the globe in Israel and Malaysia.

To determine the competitiveness of their cloud services, we examined the features and compared them with each company. Based on the table, IBM has the least number of features (43) according to GetApp while Microsoft Azure has 70 features, the second-highest behind Google Cloud Platform with the most features (90).

Furthermore, we also compared their cloud pricing to determine the competitiveness of their cloud services. As seen in the table, Azure has the second most expensive pricing behind AWS based on its online website cost estimator (2 virtual CPUs and 8GB of RAM running on Windows OS). In comparison, IBM’s pricing ($71.29) is the lowest among competitors and has pricing below the average of $123.62 which we believe indicates its pricing advantage.

To sum it up, we believe Microsoft’s cloud strategy had been superior to IBM's due to its superior market share, growth, availability zones and a wider user base despite IBM’s higher user growth and competitive pricing.

Overall

We believe Microsoft edges out IBM in the Strategy factor by being the superior company in Product Innovation, Diversification, Integration and Cloud strategies. However, we believe IBM is better in terms of the Acquisition strategy.

Strategy

Advantage

Product Innovation

Microsoft

Diversification

Microsoft

Acquisition

IBM

Integration

Microsoft

Cloud

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

Financials

To compare the differences between Microsoft and IBM based on their financials, we looked at their diversification, revenue growth, profitability, efficiency and credit position.

Diversification

Industries

(Growth Rate)

Microsoft

Average Revenue Growth

Revenue Breakdown %

IBM

Average Revenue Growth

Revenue Breakdown %

IT Services (12.4% CAGR)

Server products

22.6%

31.3%

Internet Services

& Infrastructure

26.0%**

15.2%

Enterprise Services

4.2%

4.1%

IT Consulting &

Other Services

1.4%

31.1%

Software (5.78% CAGR)

Office products

10.8%

23.7%

Software

-0.1%

26.9%

Windows

5.8%

13.8%

Dynamics

14.8%

2.3%

Entertainment (8.3% CAGR)

Gaming

11.4%

9.1%

Interactive Media & Services (8.4% CAGR)

LinkedIn

25.1%*

6.1%

Media (15% CAGR)

Search advertising

9.6%

5.1%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals (8.76% CAGR)

Devices

-0.9%

4.0%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals

-2.3%**

24.7%

Others

Other

8.7%

0.4%

Others

-0.9%

2.1%

Total

13.1%

100.0%

-5.7%

100.0%

*3-year average

**1-year average

Source: Microsoft, IBM, The Business Research Company, Statista, Khaveen Investments

Firstly, we compiled and compared their revenue streams based on GICs classification. Based on the table, Microsoft’s revenues are split across 6 industries namely IT Services, software, entertainment, interactive media & services, media, technology hardware, storage & peripherals. Whereas IBM’s revenue streams are more concentrated as it is only split across 3 industries (IT Services, software, technology hardware, storage & peripherals). Moreover, Microsoft has more segments (9) compared to IBM (4).

The largest segment for Microsoft is Server products (31.3% of revenue) followed by Office products (23.7%) and Windows (13.8%). In comparison, IBM’s largest segment revenue contribution is similar to IT consulting (31% of revenue) and followed by software (27%). In terms of revenue growth, IBM’s Internet Services & Infrastructure segment was its fastest-growing segment (26%) and was higher than Microsoft’s Server products (22.6%). Though, IBM’s Internet Services & Infrastructure segment only accounted for 15% of the company’s revenue compared to Microsoft’s Server products segment (31% of revenue).

Also, 3 of Microsoft’s segments (Server products, LinkedIn, Dynamics) totaling 40% of revenue have above-average revenue growth (13.1%) compared to IBM which only has 2 segments (Internet Services & Infrastructure and IT Consulting) totaling 46% of revenue which grew above its total company average (-5.7%).

Thus, we believe that Microsoft has better diversification compared to IBM with a wider revenue exposure across more GICS industries than IBM and more segments. Microsoft’s fastest-growing segment’s revenue contribution is also twice that of IBM’s.

microsoft revenue

Microsoft, Khaveen Investments

ibm revenue breakdown

IBM, Khaveen Investments

Revenue Growth

growth

SeekingAlpha

Furthermore, as seen in the tables above, Microsoft’s YoY revenue growth (20.37%) is higher than IBM's (14.9%). Both companies’ revenue growth had been higher than their 5-year averages, but Microsoft’s 5-year CAGR (16.02%) had been superior to that of IBM (-5.97%). Based on our previous analyses, we forecasted Microsoft to have a higher 5-year forward average revenue growth of 21.5% compared to just 5% for IBM. Also, the company has higher current and 3-year average EBITDA growth than IBM. Therefore, we believe all the factors above point to Microsoft’s superior growth compared to IBM.

Profitability Analysis

For the profitability comparison, we compared the companies in terms of their TTM gross, operating, EBITDA, net and FCF margins.

profitability

Seeking Alpha

Based on the table, IBM has remained profitable with positive average margins despite its revenue decline. Notwithstanding, Microsoft has superior profit margins than IBM with higher gross, operating, EBITDA, net margins and FCF margins based on both current and a 5-year average.

More importantly, Microsoft’s margins have been improving with higher current margins than its 5-year averages for its gross, operating, EBITDA, net margins and FCF margins. Whereas for IBM, except for its gross margins, the rest of its margins have declined compared to its 5-year average. Therefore, we believe Microsoft clearly beats IBM with superior profitability.

Efficiency Analysis

efficiency analysis

SeekingAlpha

In terms of its efficiency, Microsoft has superior ROE, ROTC, and ROA to IBM. Though, Microsoft had higher capex/sales compared to IBM in both current and a 5-year average. Compared to IBM, Microsoft's ROE, ROTC and ROA ratios have improved in the past 5 years while IBM had deteriorated due to the decline of its profitability margins. Additionally, Microsoft had a higher asset turnover ratio as well as cash from operations which highlights its superior efficiency.

Thus, we believe Microsoft has an advantage over IBM based on efficiency analysis with superior ratios to IBM and improving ratios compared to its 5-year average.

Credit Analysis

For credit analysis of both companies, we compared their net debt, interest coverage ratios, EBITDA/Net debt and Debt to Equity ratios.

Credit Ratios

Microsoft

IBM

Net Debt ($ mln)

46,372

101,800

Net Debt as % of Market Cap

2.3%

79.7%

Debt/Equity (5-year Average)

1.64x

5.94x

EBITDA interest coverage (5-year Average)

406.1x

16.5x

FCF interest coverage (5-year Average)

246.8x

7.8x

EBITDA/Net Debt (5-year Average)

1.60x

0.14x

Source: Company Data, Khaveen Investments

From the table, Microsoft has a lower net debt than IBM and lower net debt as a % of the market cap (2.3%) compared to IBM (79.7%). Also, Microsoft has a much lower debt/equity ratio of 1.64x than IBM (5.94x). In the charts below of their cash to debt ratios, both companies saw their ratios declining over the past 10 years. Notwithstanding, Microsoft continues to maintain a higher cash-to-debt ratio than IBM.

Moreover, Microsoft has superior coverage ratios compared to IBM which indicates its superior ability to service its debt obligations.

msft net debt

Microsoft, Khaveen Investments

ibm net debt

IBM, Khaveen Investments

Source: IBM, Khaveen Investments

In the charts above of their cash to debt ratios, both companies saw their ratios declining over the past 10 years. Notwithstanding, Microsoft continues to maintain a higher cash-to-debt ratio than IBM. Therefore, we believe Microsoft has an advantage over IBM based on credit analysis, beating IBM on all 7 metrics we looked at.

Overall

We believe Microsoft has the overall advantage over IBM based on its financials as we determined it to have better diversification, revenue growth, profitability, efficiency and credit than IBM.

Financials

Advantage

Diversification

Microsoft

Revenue Growth

Microsoft

Profitability analysis

Microsoft

Efficiency analysis

Microsoft

Credit analysis

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

Valuation

Multiples

Ratios

Microsoft Current

Microsoft 5-year Average

Upside

IBM Current

IBM 5-year Average

Upside

P/E

26.5x

34.4x

16.0%

25.14x

18.48x

-22.0%

P/S

9.9x

9.4x

-15.8%

2.12x

1.64x

-41.0%

P/FCF

30.7x

29.5x

25.6%

13.09x

7.91x

-54.6%

Average

9.5%

-39.2%

Source: Seeking Alpha, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Based on the table above of the valuation multiples, all of Microsoft’s ratios (current) including P/E, P/S and P/FCF are higher than IBM. Moreover, based on a 5-year average, all of Microsoft’s valuation ratios are also higher than IBM indicating IBM’s better value compared to Microsoft.

However, when comparing each company’s current and 5-year average ratio, Microsoft’s PE (26.5x) ratio is below its 5-year average (34.4x) while the other ratios are higher than its 5-year average. Whereas all of IBM’s ratios are above its 5-year average. Based on their ratios, we obtained an upside of 9.5% for Microsoft and -39.2% for IBM.

Therefore, we believe that despite IBM’s better value compared to Microsoft with its lower current and 5-year average ratios, Microsoft edges out IBM with its higher upside than IBM as its P/E and P/FCF ratios (current) are lower than its 5-year averages while IBM’s ratios are above its 5-year average

Ratings

Ratings

Microsoft

IBM

DCF Rating

Strong Buy

Sell

DCF Upside

114.4%

-13.3%

DCF Price Target

$550.55

$122.37

Analyst Consensus Rating

Strong Buy

Hold

Analyst Consensus Upside

39.3%

1.6%

Analyst Consensus Price Target

$357.85

$143.50

Source: Seeking Alpha, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Based on the table above, we derived a DCF upside of 114% for Microsoft and rated it as a Strong Buy whereas for IBM we obtained a 13.3% downside and rated it as a Sell. With reference to analyst consensus estimates, Microsoft was rated as a Strong Buy with a 39.3% upside compared to IBM at only a Hold with a 1.6% upside. Thus, we believe Microsoft is clearly superior to IBM with a higher rating from DCF and analyst consensus.

microsoft valuation

Khaveen Investments

ibm valuation

Khaveen Investments

Investment Returns

Company

5-year Stock Return

Annualized Return

Dividend Yield

Total Annual Return

Microsoft

275.54%

30.2%

0.96%

31.16%

IBM

-5.78%

-0.89%

4.77%

3.88%

Source: Seeking Alpha, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Finally, we compared the investment returns based on the past 5 years between Microsoft and IBM and computed its annualized return and calculated the total return with its dividend yield. Overall, Microsoft (31.16%) has a higher annualized total return than IBM (3.88%) which highlights its advantage

Overall

To sum it up, based on the multiples, ratings and investment returns, we believe Microsoft edges out IBM with its Strong Buy ratings based on DCF and analyst consensus and higher investment return compared to IBM.

Valuation

Advantage

Multiples

Microsoft

Ratings

Microsoft

Investment Returns

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

Risk: Dividend Growth

IBM

ibm dividend

SeekingAlpha

We believe the risk for the long/short strategy between Microsoft and IBM is its high dividend yield. IBM had a dividend yield of 4.77%, which is one of the considerations for shorting the stock. IBM’s dividend growth was 0.77% as seen above. However, IBM’s dividend growth had continuously slowed in the past 10 years from a 10-year CAGR of 8.17% to 3.6% (5-year) and 2.42% (3-year), which reduces the probability of much higher dividend payments going forward.

Verdict

Factor

Advantage

Product Innovation

Microsoft

Diversification

Microsoft

Acquisition

IBM

Integration

Microsoft

Cloud

Microsoft

Strategy Factor

Microsoft

Diversification

Microsoft

Revenue Growth

Microsoft

Profitability analysis

Microsoft

Efficiency analysis

Microsoft

Credit analysis

Microsoft

Financials Factor

Microsoft

Multiples

Microsoft

Ratings

Microsoft

Investment Returns

Microsoft

Valuation Factor

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

To summarize, we determined that Microsoft is superior to IBM for the Strategy factor based on their strategies as we believe its product innovation, diversification, integration and cloud strategy to be superior to IBM. Moreover, we also determined its superior financials based on diversification, revenue growth, profitability, efficiency and credit. Finally, we determined Microsoft comes up on top for the Valuation factor considering its upside based on multiples, DCF and higher investment returns. We determined our long/short strategy by taking into account its dividend yield, borrow fee (between 0.3% to 3%) and short sale proceeds interest of 0%.

Case

Stock

Upside

Div Yield

Gross Return

Avg Borrow Fee

Int

Net Return

Weight

Net Return

Our Case

MSFT

114.4%

1.0%

115.3%

115.3%

81.3%

94.99%

IBM

-13.3%

4.8%

-8.6%

1.7%

0%

6.9%

18.8%

Base Case

MSFT

16.10%

0.96%

17.06%

17.06%

81.25%

34.25%

IBM

-16.42%

4.77%

-11.65%

1.65%

0%

10.00%

18.75%

Bear Case

MSFT

16.10%

0.96%

17.06%

17.06%

81.25%

15.74%

IBM

-16.42%

4.77%

-11.65%

1.65%

0%

10.00%

18.75%

Bull Case

MSFT

60.0%

1.0%

61.0%

61.0%

81.3%

54.1%

IBM

17.6%

4.8%

22.3%

1.7%

0%

24.0%

18.8%

Source: SA, IBKR, Khaveen Investments

To determine the appropriate weights for the trade, we computed a sensitivity analysis based on the different scenarios and long-short weights. As seen in the chart below, long Microsoft (81% weight) and short IBM (19% weight) would generate the highest net return in all scenarios.

sensitivity analysis

Khaveen Investments

Overall, we believe both Microsoft and IBM have contrasting fundamentals which provides a clear opportunity for a Long-Short trade. While IBM was the old leader of the IT sector, Microsoft has emerged as the new dominant player with a clear-cut advantage owing to its superior product innovation, diversification, integration, cloud strategies as well as solid financials and attractive valuation. Thus, we believe a long/short strategy can be implemented on this pair of stocks, and carry a Strong Buy rating on Microsoft and a Sell rating on IBM.

Sun, 03 Jul 2022 20:27:00 -0500 en text/html https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521603-microsoft-vs-ibm-long-short-strategy
Killexams : It’s time for startup founders to face reality

For the last decade, startups have been enjoying an unprecedented bull market that has been propped up by U.S. monetary policy, direct cash payments, and other government spending. Meanwhile, financial experts have been predicting that the tech bubble is on the verge of bursting. While those predictions have been wrong for nearly a decade, they may finally be right. The combination of high inflation, rising interest rates, broken supply chains, the war in Ukraine, and a host of other issues make this correction a little different. The tech-heavy NASDAQ is down almost 30% this year, IPOs will likely be down 70% by the end of the year, and the effects are just starting to be felt in the private markets.

While this may seem like a scary time for startup founders, current market conditions actually provide a lot of opportunity. A accurate conversation between my team and the CEOs and CFOs of our portfolio companies brought up some important points relevant to startup founders.

BE REALISTIC ABOUT RUNWAY

Founders need to start focusing on fundamentals, especially how much cash they have on hand and how long that cash will last. My team and I advise our founders to think in terms of a traffic light: green means go, yellow means caution, and red means stop what you are doing immediately.

If you do not have the runway to get you through the end of 2023, then that is a red-light situation. If you have runway through 2024, then that is yellow. And if you have runway through 2025, then that is green, meaning this could be a great time to buy competitors or hire talent from major industry players that are laying off employees. But if you are facing a red light, then you need to start making several different plans to increase revenue, reduce costs, and/or raise money to get you safely into 2024.

COST OF CAPITAL IS INCREASING

Startups needing to raise money will likely face a tough few years. In fact, if you are able to raise a flat round right now, then you should be thrilled. Otherwise, surviving the next three years should be your goal. A founder of a growth-stage startup will need to greatly reevaluate the terms and valuation of their upcoming funding round, as any previous forecasts should be thrown out the window because they are meaningless in this new environment.

For example, my team and I spoke with the founder of a company in late 2021. At the time, we were looking to invest in the company at around a $400 million valuation. The founder already had a term sheet and was in a strong position to negotiate. But over the course of about 90 days, another investor pulled their term sheet and negotiations ended up at around a $150 million valuation. In a single quarter, the company’s valuation dropped 62.5% despite company fundamentals remaining strong.

These are the types of headwinds that founders should begin preparing for now.

GROWTH AT ALL COSTS WILL NO LONGER BE REWARDED

These days, investors are looking for more certainty and safer places to put their money. A startup founder’s top priority should be extending runway, not increasing their company’s valuation (just think of the various founders who have been made infamous in series like “Super Pumped” and “WeCrashed,” who abandoned responsible management for the sake of growth).

If you have a path to profitability, take it. Founders should look to reduce marketing costs, slow R&D, and freeze hiring as quickly as possible.

NOT ALL STARTUPS WILL BE TREATED THE SAME

Navigating a fraught economic period can be unnerving for employees, which is why you need to clearly communicate the health of your company at all times.

While other means should also be considered to reduce costs, a round of performance layoffs shouldn’t be off the table. Many companies grow too quickly and onboard too many people, leaving them in a weak position when markets correct. Founders owe it to their employees to make sure the company survives. Layoffs are often needed, yet occur too late. The sooner such decisions can be made, the sooner you will be in a stronger position to return to normal hiring practices.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

As we try to survive yet another economic downturn, it’s helpful to remember other volatile corrections: 2001’s “dot-com bubble” and 2008’s housing crisis. While many founders may not have had to navigate those recessions personally, the lessons of the COVID-19 market shock should have prepared most founders for this new era of volatility.

I can’t predict the markets. No one can. However, founders have an opportunity to emerge from this downturn stronger than ever. Some of the world’s biggest companies emerged from the dot-com bubble (Google, Amazon) and the 2008 recession (Meta, Uber, Square). Founders should take decisive action now so that their companies can survive whatever the markets throw at them during what’s to come.


Dakin Sloss is the Founder and General Partner of Prime Movers Lab, the world’s leading partner of breakthrough scientific startups.  

Fri, 08 Jul 2022 01:39:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.fastcompany.com/90764965/its-time-for-startup-founders-to-face-reality
Killexams : Why the Pandemic Downturn Has Been Amid the “Most Benign” for the Office Sector

When COVID-19 kept a big part of the U.S. office workforce home throughout much of 2020 and 2021, the fear in the commercial real estate industry was that the office sector would take a huge hit. Even now, some media headlines continue to predict the permanent obsolescence of the office as a concept. But a June report from Moody’s Analytics found that the pandemic has not had as a great of a negative impact on office sector fundamentals as did the Great Financial Crisis and previous real estate downturns.

The report found that the U.S. office sector registered more moderate occupancy and rent declines in the wake of the pandemic than it did during the previous three downturns; that office loan delinquency rates never spiraled out of control; and that office equity returns continued to be largely positive for institutional investors.

There are also indications that in spite of the challenges associated with remote work, commercial real estate investors remain bullish on the office sector, especially when it comes to class-A properties in strong locations.

To find out what’s going on in the sector, WMRE recently spoke with Kevin Fagan, head of CRE economic analysis with Moody’s Analytics and one of the authors of the June report. Fagan talks about a comparative analysis of office properties today vs. previous downturns and explains what might have softened the impact of the pandemic on the sector.

The following Q&A has been edited for length, style and clarity.

WMRE: How does the state of the office sector today compare to what happened during previous real estate downturns?

kevin-fagan-web.jpgKevin Fagan: The loss of rent, occupancy and value in office buildings and defaults on office loans have been significantly less in this downturn than the typical boom-bust cycles over the past 40 years. We’ve been broadly tracking office performance metrics at Moody's Analytics CRE (formerly REIS), and two years after the 2020 recession a lasting, historically deep deterioration stemming from the pandemic has yet to materialize in traditional indicators.

WMRE: What trends in property fundamentals have been the same during the pandemic downturn with previous ones, and what trends/themes have differed? How important are those differences?

Kevin Fagan: Office sector fundamentals in this down cycle did not follow past cycles, which came on the heels of loss of office-using employment and corporate defaults that traditionally soften demand for office space and, therefore, office values and investment. Office-using employment and corporate performance were resilient after the 2020 hit. While employment losses in 2020 as a percent of total U.S. jobs were the deepest since the Great Depression in 1929, the vast majority of those lost jobs were in the service and hospitality sectors. Those are are generally lower-pay, lower-skill jobs than typical professional services, office-using jobs.

Therefore, in combination with government fiscal and monetary support, the economy and corporations rebounded quickly without reducing or abandoning their office spaces en masse, despite not actively utilizing the space during the triage work-from-home period of the pandemic. Of course that wasn't true across the board, so pain in business world did ultimately flow through to the office sector, just not nearly on the scale of past cycles that are financially driven and hit professional service firms hard.

WMRE: Can you explain why office revenues didn’t take as big of a hit during the pandemic as during previous market downturns?

Kevin Fagan: In the period between 2008 and 2020, we didn't see as much overbuilding in the office sector compared to the usual ramp-up before other downturns. This largely had to do with High Volatility Commercial Real Estate Rules (banking regulator rules for high-risk projects that require a more robust capital buffer than less risky projects to mitigate the bank's risk) that resulted in less construction lending in this cycle than prior up cycles.

WMRE: Why hasn't there been a huge impact from the pandemic on office equity returns?

Kevin Fagan: Unlike the stock market or other trading markets, commercial real estate capital markets move slowly. Price is determined by sales. Volume of office building sales was down over the past two years, and those that did trade were either already in process before the pandemic or simply weren't the forced, distressed sales that percolate during downturns.

Broadly speaking, building owners didn't have the revenue decline that needs to happen to force a sale, either by the ownership trying to cut losses or lenders selling through a foreclosure or lender REO. If more distressed sales were forced to happen, we likely would have seen a greater drop in office values. But, as it was, the implied values from the sales that happened and [their] appraisals remained largely intact. Indeed, many saw implied value increases. Repeat sale indices from many different commercial real estate analytics companies, including Moody's, recorded a slight dip at the national level, but a double-digit office price increase over 2021. 

WMRE: What was one of the biggest surprises your research revealed?

Kevin Fagan: For us, the research wasn't surprising because our business is to track these metrics closely. Those that don't track them as closely may find it surprising to learn that this has been one of the most benign cycles for offices, given the deluge of negative headlines about the apocalyptic future of office. Our intent was to make it clear that if that apocalypse is to occur that it hasn't happened yet, relative to the numbers in past cycles.

WMRE: How does the implementation of remote and hybrid work correlate with office vacancies?

Kevin Fagan: We have seen some early evidence that markets with the lowest physical office utilization rates—where companies have been slower to make a "return to the office"—have higher vacancy rates. It's not clear by any means yet that this trend will continue, but could be because “the great return to office” really will not begin until fall 2022. Many companies will require "anchor days" each week when employees must be in the office, so we expect to see a resurgence in occupancy rates in the big, dense urban markets during 2023.

The biggest question now is how or if companies can shed significant space if employees are in the office less, but there will be a long experimental period, with different companies taking different [routes] that best suit them. Very few real estate pros or consultancy firms that are advising tenants on space usage believe that companies can translate their employees being in the office 40 to 50 percent less on average to 40 to 50 less office space occupied. Companies that need their employees to interact or collaborate will have to resolve how to keep interactions happening.

There have been excellent studies that show "incidental collision" between workers is very important to the overall productivity of a company, and those collisions are reduced dramatically every day or week fewer employees come together in the office. Companies, therefore, will need to weigh the ability to cultivate collaborative workforces against a desire to save on real estate costs.

WMRE: What are the biggest issues facing the office sector today that need to be resolved? How much time do you expect it will take to resolve them?

Kevin Fagan: The biggest issue by far is how companies come to rationalize their space needs against what makes their workforce the most efficient. Real estate costs would be nice to cut, but only account for around 4 percent of a company’s revenue—[and] much less for big tech firms. On the other hand, the costs for human capital are typically 5 to 10 times higher than the cost of office space and very important to get right.

Remote working actually has a 40-year history, starting with IBM in 1983. There have been a lot of real world experiments and academic studies on the pros and cons of diversified workforce practices for workers, employers and society in general.

That experiment will have to continue on a much larger scale coming off the pandemic, with companies trying out anchor days, a minimum or set number of days when employees are required to be in the office; allowing team managers to try different in-office strategies, like a mix of reservation-style "hot desking" and private offices; taking more co-working or flex office space; and all other manner of in-office approaches to get workers together to interact and collaborate.

It's unlikely that the first approach for a company will be the permanent state of things, so we're most likely looking at multiple years of experimentation to see what works best. This will enable tenants to rationalize their space needs longer term, but it will be a number of years before they can make a determination and their current leases expire.

WMRE: How long do you expect it to take for the market to gain clarity on the ultimate fate of the office sector? Do you have some scenarios for how it might go that you can share with WMRE readers?

Kevin Fagan: The direction that the office market goes will largely require us to wait until companies start making those long-term decisions after returning to the office. Since the delay from the Omicron variant and the lull of the summer, it's likely we'll see very early indicators starting in the fall of 2022. However, those early indicators could be spurious anomalies, and we'll have to be careful before making dramatic conclusions of apocalypse or no apocalypse.

We'll likely get more hard, reliable data over the course of the second half of 2023 through 2025. And, even if we do see some widespread reduction in demand for office space per employee, that doesn't necessarily portend a mass decline in office rent, occupancy and value.

Starting in the 1990s there was a major shift in the office market that caused companies to eventually cut the amount of space per employee in half, from about 250 sq. ft. feet to about 125 sq. ft. per employee. Over that period, however, office rents and values continued to grow, especially for CBD offices.

The natural growth of office-using employment, assuming we don't have a glut of new office construction, could cause absorption of space even with less demand per firm and employee.

WMRE: Is there anything else you want to add based on your findings?

Kevin Fagan: Office management is very likely to change significantly going forward, with more of a hospitality kind of angle. Also, tenants will be more selective with office space. They’re likely to either want deeply discounted rents or high-amenity type spaces. Owners and operators that Strengthen their services, focus on health and sustainability, common area spaces, a variety of food options and so forth are the most likely to survive and thrive in the post-pandemic office world.

Tue, 12 Jul 2022 07:29:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.wealthmanagement.com/office/why-pandemic-downturn-has-been-amid-most-benign-office-sector
Killexams : Engineering Fundamentals: Is Moore’s Law the Wright One? Battery Tech Hopes So

Scientific laws describe observed phenomena, like Newton’s Law of Gravity. Engineering “laws” tend to focus on design or manufacturing processes, such as Moore’s Law. Although this most famous of engineering laws is really a corollary to a more comprehensive principle (as we’ll see shortly), it is nevertheless so well known that non-semiconductor experts refer to it often in their predictions. For example, several technology advocates have lamented the lack of a Moore’s Law equivalent in the automotive battery space.

“There is a focus (in the battery market) on halving cost while doubling energy density in the next three years,” observed Michael Doyle, Corporate Fellow in Material Sciences in the Dassault Systemes Strategy and Research Team. The specific reference to doubling within a particular time frame mimics Gordon Moore’s famous design and manufacturing law predictions. But let’s see what is behind Doyle’s statement for trends in battery technology.

What drives this desire for the doubling of density every three years (as opposed to 18 months with semiconductor nodes)? Several issues explained Doyle. Cost is one driver. The reality is that $50,000 for a new car is not an everyman or mass-market solution. So, costs will have to come down, hence the halving prediction. Fortunately, a scale price reduction has been a common occurrence in the semiconductor and automotive sectors. Of course, these sectors are not mutually exclusive as automobiles are dependent upon semiconductors and related technologies.

Similarly, charging times will also need to come down. Consumers will not wait at a fueling station for 30 minutes or more to recharge their EVs. In addition, bigger batteries currently take even longer to charge.

Fortunately, the Tesla goal of 5-6X energy increases looks promising, cites Doyle.  Similarly, car OEMs are driving a 40% cost reduction per pack to promote profitability. There are multiple tipping points such as mass reduction in a pack that might drive aviation markets as well.

Moore’s Law in The Quantum World

Just as in the semiconductor and the automotive spaces, doubling performance in a mere matter of years or less is now the benchmark for quantum computers. Instead of Moore’s Law, quantum computing practitioners refer to their systems' quantum volume (QV).

QV is a measure of the increasing capability of quantum computers to solve complex, real-world problems. But how does an increase in QV relate to existing criteria such as semiconductor performance as dictated by Moore’s Law? Before answering that question, it’s necessary to understand what is meant by a Quantum Volume.

QV is a hardware-agnostic metric that IBM initially used to measure the performance of its quantum computers. This metric was needed since a classical computer’s transistor count, and a quantum computer’s quantum bit count isn’t the same. Qubits decohere, forgetting their assigned quantum information in less than a millisecond. To be commercially viable and useful, quantum computers must have a few low-error, highly connected, and scalable qubits to ensure a fault-tolerant and reliable system. That is why QV now serves as a benchmark for the progress being made by quantum computers to solve real-world problems.

According to Honeywell’s accurate release, the System Model H1 has become the first to achieve a demonstrated quantum volume of 1024. This QV represents a doubling of its record from just four months ago.

Wright’s Vs. Moore’s Law

In 1936, Theodore P. Wright wrote a paper entitled, ‘Factors affecting the costs of airplanes.” As it turns out, Moore's Law is a particular case of Wright’s Law. This law described technological evolution for dozens of industries, including the yet to be formed semiconductor electronics space.  

A few years back, Santa Fe Institute (SFI) issued a working paper (Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress, by Bela Nagy,  J. Doyne Farmer, Quan M. Bui, and Jessika E. Trancik)  that compared the performance of six technology-forecasting models with constant-dollar historical cost data for 62 different technologies. The dataset included specifications on hardware like transistors and DRAMs and products in energy, chemicals, and other categories during the periods when they were undergoing technological evolution. The datasets cover spans of nearly 40 years.

 “It is not possible to quantify the performance of a technology with a single number,” noted the authors of the report. “A computer, for example, is characterized by speed, storage capacity, size, and cost, as well as other intangible characteristics such as aesthetics. One automobile may be faster while another is less expensive.”

To normalize the analysis, the author’s focused on a single variable: cost, specifically the inflation-adjusted price of one “unit.” For example, recasting Moore’s Law to translate computing power into unit cost morphed the familiar “computing power doubles every 18 months” into “transistor costs drop by 50 percent every 1.4 years.”

According to the report, Wright’s Law seems to be a slightly better predictor than Moore’s Law. When production increases exponentially, Moore’s and Wright’s Laws are very similar. However, Wright’s Law comes out ahead on the strength of its performance over more extended periods.

So, if production for battery technology is expanding exponentially – thanks to increasing electronic vehicle (EV) production – it may be time for automotive pundits to cite Wright’s Law instead of its semiconductor derivative, which may well be why Doyle mentioned the focus of doubling energy data over a 3-year span (instead of 18 months). The trend will be more apparent as more data is compiled and analyzed.

Cover Image: Photo by Giammarco on Unsplash

John Blyler is a Design News senior editor, covering the electronics and advanced manufacturing spaces. With a BS in Engineering Physics and an MS in Electrical Engineering, he has years of hardware-software-network systems experience as an editor and engineer within the advanced manufacturing, IoT and semiconductor industries. John has co-authored books related to system engineering and electronics for IEEE, Wiley, and Elsevier.

Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:59:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.designnews.com/electronics/engineering-fundamentals-moores-law-wright-one-battery-tech-hopes-so
Killexams : Take The Plunge, Ric Edelman Advises Crypto-Wary Advisors No result found, try new keyword!While many wealth managers keep cryptocurrencies at arm’s length amid the markets crash, an industry pioneer begs to differ. Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:34:03 -0500 en-us text/html https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/take-the-plunge-ric-edelman-advises-crypto-wary-advisors/ar-AAZvfFM Killexams : Communication, Media and Design

The Communication, Media and Design undergraduate bachelor's degree program encompasses 36 of the 120 credit hours required for a bachelor's degree.
This provides you with the opportunity to pursue multiple majors, minors or concentrations while working toward your Communication, Media and Design degree. All courses are 3 credits unless noted.

Clarkson Common Experience
The following courses are required for all students, irrespective of their program of study. These courses are offered during the fall semester, with FY100 First-Year Seminar being required of only first-year students. Both FY100 and UNIV190 are typically taken during the fall semester of the first year at Clarkson.

  • FY100  First-Year Seminar (1 credit)
  • UNIV190 The Clarkson Seminar (3 credits)

Communication, Media and Design Core Requirements
Students majoring in Communication, Media and Design are required to complete the following courses:

  • COMM210 Theory of Rhetoric for Business, Science & Engineering
  • COMM217 Introduction to Public Speaking
  • COMM490 Senior Communication Internship
  • COMM499 Communication Professional Experience

Communication, Media and Design Core Electives
The following are electives students are required to complete for the Communication, Media and Design major.

300-Level Communication, Media and Design Course:
Students must complete one Communication, Media and Design course at the 300-level from the following:

  • COMM312 Public Relations
  • COMM313 Professional Communications
  • COMM314 Placemaking, Marketing and Promotion
  • COMM330 Science Journalism

400-Level Communication, Media and Design Course:
Students must complete one Communication, Media and Design course at the 400-level from the following:

  • COMM410 Theory & Philosophy of Communication
  • COMM412 Organizational Communications & Public Relations Theory
  • COMM428 Environmental Communication

Courses with Technology Expertise:
Students must complete at least 6 credits with information technology expertise.

Mathematics/Statistics Electives:
Students must complete at least 6 credits from the mathematics (MA) and/or statistics (STAT) subject areas.

Science Electives:
Students must complete at least 6 credits, including a lab course, from the biology (BY), chemistry (CM), and/or physics (PH) subject areas.

Knowledge Area/University Course Electives:
Students majoring in communication will have approximately 42 credit hours available to use toward Knowledge Area and/or University Course electives.

Free Electives:
Students majoring in communication will have approximately 42 credit hours available to use toward courses of their choice.

Communication, Media and Design electives (21 credits) chosen from the following:

  • COMM100 2D Digital Design
  • COMM217 Introduction to Public Speaking
  • COMM219 Introduction Social Media
  • COMM226 Short Film Screenwriting
  • COMM229 Principles of User-Experience Design
  • COMM245 Writing for New Media
  • COMM310 Mass Media & Society
  • COMM322 Typography & Design
  • COMM326 Feature Film Screenwriting
  • COMM327 Digital Video Production I
  • COMM329 Front-End Development for the Web
  • COMM345 Information Design
  • COMM360 Sound Design
  • COMM391-395 Special Topics
  • COMM420-425 Communication: Independent Study (1-9 credits)
  • COMM427 Digital Video Production II
  • COMM429 Full-stack Development
  • COMM447 Design-Driven Innovation
  • COMM448 Portraying Innovation Through the Lens
  • COMM449 Narrating Innovation
  • COMM450 Leading Innovation
  • COMM470 Communication Internship
  • COMM480 Undergraduate Teaching Assistantship in Communication & Media (1-3 credits)
Thu, 26 May 2022 08:40:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.clarkson.edu/undergraduate/communication-media-and-design
Killexams : Embedded analytics emerges to offer new level of business intelligence

Business analytics is an increasingly powerful tool for organisations, but one that is associated with steep learning curves and significant investments in infrastructure.

The idea of using data to drive better decision-making is well established. But the conventional approach – centred around reporting and analysis tools – relies on specialist applications and highly trained staff. Often, firms find they have to build teams of data scientists to gather the data and manage the tools, and to build queries.

This creates bottlenecks in the flow of information, as business units rely on specialist teams to interrogate the data, and to report back. Even though reporting tools have improved dramatically over the past decade, with a move from spreadsheets to visual dashboards, there is still too much distance between the data and the decision-makers.

Companies and organistions also face dealing with myriad data sources. A study from IDC found that close to four in five firms used more than 100 data sources and just under one-third had more than 1,000. Often, this data exists in silos.

As a result, suppliers have developed embedded analytics to bring users closer to the data and, hopefully, lead to faster and more accurate decision-making. Suppliers in the space include ThoughtSpot, Qlik and Tableau, but business intelligence (BI) and data stalwarts such as Informatica, SAS, IBM and Microsoft also have relevant capabilities.

Embedded analytics adds functionality into existing enterprise software and web applications. That way, users no longer need to swap into another application – typically a dashboard or even a BI tool itself – to look at data. Instead, analytics suppliers provide application programming interfaces (APIs) to link their tools to the host application.

Embedded analytics can be used to supply mobile and remote workers access to decision support information, and even potentially data, on the move. This goes beyond simple alerting tools: systems with embedded analytics built in allow users to see visualisations and to drill down into live data.

And the technology is even being used to provide context-aware information to consumers. Google, for example, uses analytics to present information about how busy a location or service will be, based on variables such as the time of day.

Indeed, some suppliers describe embedded analytics as a “Google for business” because it allows users to access data without technical know-how or an understanding of analytical queries.

“My definition generally is having analytics available in the system,” says Adam Mayer, technical product director at Qlik. “That’s not your dedicated kind of BI tool, but more to the point, I think it’s when you don’t realise that you’re analysing data. It’s just there.”

The trend towards embedding analytics into other applications or web services reflects the reality that there are many more people in enterprises who could benefit from the insights offered by BI than there are users of conventional BI systems.

Firms also want to Strengthen their return on investment in data collection and storage by giving more of the business access to the information they hold. And with the growth of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI), some of the heavy lifting associated with querying data is being automated.

“What we are trying to do is supply non-technical users the ability to engage with data,” says Damien Brophy, VP for Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) at ThoughtSpot. “We’re bringing that consumer-like, Google-like experience to enterprise data. It is giving thousands of people access to data, as opposed to five or 10 analysts in the business who then produce content for the rest of the business.”

At one level, embedded analytics stands to replace static reports and potentially dashboards too, without the need to switch applications. That way, an HR or supply chain specialist can view and – to a degree – query data from within their HR or enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, for example.

A field service engineer could use an embedded analysis module within a maintenance application to run basic “what if” queries, to check whether it is better to replace a part now or carry out a minor repair and do a full replacement later.

Embedded analytics to help decision-making

Also, customer service agents are using embedded analytics to help with decision-making and to tailor offers to customers.

Embedded systems are designed to work with live data and even data streams, even where users do not need to drill down into the data. Enterprises are likely to use the same data to drive multiple analysis tools: the analytics, business development or finance teams will use their own tools to carry out complex queries, and a field service or customer service agent might need little more than a red or green traffic light on their screen.

“The basic idea is that every time your traditional reporting process finds the root cause of a business problem, you train your software, either by formal if-then-else rules or via machine learning, to alert you the next time a similar situation is about to arise,” says Duncan Jones, VP and principal analyst at Forrester.

“For instance, suppose you need to investigate suppliers that are late delivering important items. In the old approach, you would create reports about provider performance, with on-time-delivery KPI and trends and you’d pore through it looking for poor performers.

“The new approach is to create that as a view within your home screen or dashboard, continually alerting you to the worst performers or rapidly deteriorating ones, and triggering a formal workflow for you to record the actions you’ve taken – such as to contact that provider to find out what it is doing to fix its problems.”

This type of alerting helps businesses, because it speeds up the decision-making process by providing better access to data that the organisation already holds.

“It’s partly businesses’ need to move faster, to react more quickly to issues,” says Jones. “It’s also evolution of the technology to make embedded alert-up analytics easier to deliver.”

Embedded analytics suppliers are also taking advantage of the trend for businesses to store more of their data in the cloud, making it easier to link to multiple applications via APIs. Some are going a step further and offering analytical services too: a firm might no longer need expertise in BI, as the provider can offer its own analytical capabilities.

Again, this could be via the cloud, but serving the results back to the users in their own application. And it could even go further by allowing different users to analyse data in their own workflow-native applications.

A “smart” medical device, such as an asthma inhaler, could provide an individual’s clinical data to their doctor, but anonymised and aggregated data to the manufacturer to allow them to plan drug manufacturing capacity better.

“Data now is changing so quickly, you really need intraday reporting,” says Lee Howells, an analytics specialist at PA Consulting. “If we can put that in on a portal and allow people to see it as it happened, or interact with it, they are then able to drill down on it.

“It’s putting that data where employees can use it and those employees can be anyone from the CEO to people on operations.”

But if the advantage of embedded analytics lies in its ability to tailor data to the users’ roles and day-to-day applications, it still relies on the fundamentals of robust BI systems.

Firms considering embedded analytics need to look at data quality, data protection and data governance.

They also need to pay attention to security and privacy: the central data warehouse or data lake might have robust security controls, but does the application connecting via an API? Client software embedding the data should have equal security levels.

Cleaner data is critical

And, although cleaning data is always important for effective analytics and business intelligence, it becomes all the more critical when the users are not data scientists. They need to know that they can trust the data, and if the data is imperfect or incomplete, this needs to be flagged.

A data scientist working on an analytics team will have an instinctive feel for data quality and reliability, and will understand that data need not be 100% complete to Strengthen decision-making. But a user in the field, or a senior manager, might not.

“Embedded analytics continues the democratisation of data, bringing data and insight directly to the business user within their natural workflow,” says Greg Hanson, VP for EMEA at Informatica.

“This fosters a culture of data-driven decision-making and can speed time to value. However, for CDOs [chief data officers] and CIOs, the crucial question must be: ‘is it accurate, is it trustworthy and can I rely on it?’ For embedded analytics programmes to be a success, organisations need confidence that the data fuelling them is from the right sources, is high quality and the lineage is understood.”

CDOs should also consider starting small and scaling up. The usefulness of real-time data will vary from workflow to workflow. Some suppliers’ APIs will integrate better with the host application than others. And users will need time to become comfortable making decisions based on the data they see, but also to develop a feel for when questions are better passed on to the analytics or data science team.

“Organisations, as part of their next step forward, have come to us with their cloud infrastructure or data lakes already in place, and they started to transform their data engineering into something that can be used,” says PA’s Howell. “Sometimes they put several small use cases in place as proof of concept and the proof of value. Some data isn’t as well used as it could be. I think that’s going to be a continually evolving capability.”

Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:43:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Embedded-analytics-emerges-to-offer-new-level-of-business-intelligence
Killexams : Edge Computing Market Changing Strategies to Remain Competitive | IBM Corporation, Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corporation, Aricent In

New Research Study “”Edge Computing Market 2022 analysis by Market Trends (Drivers, Constraints, Opportunities, Threats, Challenges and Investment Opportunities), Size, Share and Outlook“” has been added to Coherent Market insight

With the perfect market overview, you could get both fundamental and technical market analysis for the Edge Computing market. It offers a brief description of a commercial or industrial market for a particular period of 2022-2030. With the help of a perfect market overview, the industries aim to provide a current Edge Computing market pictures. It is the best way better to understand the particular market and its key features. The best thing about the summary reports profile is that it is an essential criterion of a market to get additional marketing activity. This report mainly looks into the size of the market, both in volume and in value. Moreover, it also looks into the various customer segments and buying patterns, economic environment, and competition in relation to entry and regulation barriers.

Request for trial Report @ https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-sample/1188

The report firstly introduced  the fundamentals of Edge Computing market, such as definitions, classifications, applications, and a market overview. It then covered product specifications, production procedures, cost structures, raw materials, and other information. Then it looked at the major market conditions around the world, such as the cost, profit, production, supply, and demand of the product, as well as the market’s projected growth rate. The report’s final sections covered investment feasibility and return analyses, as well as SWOT analyses of new projects.

Major Key players in this Market:

◘ Microsoft Corporation
◘ IBM Corporation
◘ Cisco Systems Inc.
◘ Google Inc.
◘ Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
◘ Intel Corporation
◘ Schneider Electric SE
◘ Nokia Corporation
◘ Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
◘ Aricent In

Drivers & Trends

You must know that the market drivers play an essential role in the growth of a market. They are mainly the underlying forces that compel consumers to purchases products and pay for the services. This report includes the trend that makes the Edge Computing market develop and grow in an effective manner for a particular forecast period of 2022-2030. For the convincing success of the industries, the market driver report is essential. The standard and effective market rivers are consumer demand, demand, government policy, and much more. Furthermore, the primary role of the market drivers is to influence consumer purchasing decisions.

Get PDF Brochure @ https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-pdf/1188

Edge Computing Market Taxonomy:

On the basis of component, the global edge computing market is segmented into:

  • Hardware
  • Solutions
  • Platform
  • Services

On the basis of organization size, the global edge computing market is segmented into:

  • Small and Medium Enterprises
  • Large Enterprises

On the basis of application, the global edge computing market is segmented into:

  • Smart Cities
  • Data Caching
  • Analytics
  • Location Services
  • Environmental Monitoring
  • Optimized Local Content
  • Augmented Reality
  • Others (Asset Tracking and Video Surveillance)

On the basis of end-user industry, the global edge computing market is segmented into:

  • Government and Public
  • Manufacturing
  • Media and Entertainment
  • Healthcare
  • Telecom and IT
  • Transportation
  • Energy and Utilities
  • Retail
  • Others (Hospitality, BFSI, and Education)

Regions Covered:

• North America
o US
o Canada
o Mexico

• Europe
o Germany
o UK
o Italy
o France
o Spain
o Rest of Europe

• Asia Pacific
o Japan
o China
o India
o Australia
o New Zealand
o South Korea
o Rest of Asia Pacific   

• South America
o Argentina
o Brazil
o Chile
o Rest of South America

• Middle East & Africa
o Saudi Arabia
o UAE
o Qatar
o South Africa
o Rest of Middle East & Africa

Research methods

Effective market research methods help to evaluate the feasibility of a new product or service. The research is conducted for an Edge Computing market directly through potential consumers. It allows the industries or businesses to discover the target, make an informed decision, and document opinions. Furthermore, the market research method includes surveys, interviews, customer observation, and interviews. These types of research are effective for getting the perfect research report of the Edge Computing market for a particular period of 2022-2028. Many businesses use different research methods for getting the accurate report. It not only helps the business to get the target market but also enhances their business growth in the Edge Computing market. The market research mainly makes use of analytical and statistical techniques and methods to gather and interpret information in an organization efficiently and quickly.

The following are the study objectives for this report:

◘ SWOT Analysis focuses on worldwide main manufacturers to define, assess, and analyse market competition. By kind, application, and region, the market is defined, described, and forecasted.
◘ Examine the global and main regional market potential and advantage, opportunity and challenge, constraints and risks.
◘ Determine whether trends and factors are driving or limiting market growth.
◘ By identifying high-growth categories, stakeholders would be able to analyse market potential.
◘ Conduct a strategic study of each submarket’s growth trends and market contribution.
◘ Expansions, agreements, new product launches, and acquisitions in the market are all examples of competitive developments.
◘ To create a strategic profile of the main players and analyse their growth plans in depth.

Click the Link to Apply $2000 Flat Discount @ https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/promo/buynow/1188

Table of Contents with Major Points:

1. Overview

1.1 Edge Computing

1.2 Segmentation of Agrochemicals

2. Global Edge Computing Market

2.1 Global Edge Computing Market by Value

2.2 Global Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

2.3 Global Edge Computing Market by Crop Type

2.4 Global Edge Computing Market by Type

2.5 Global Edge Computing Market by Product Type

2.6 Global Edge Computing Market by Region

3. Regional Market

3.1 Asia/Pacific

3.1.1 Asia/Pacific Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

3.1.2 Asia/Pacific Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

3.1.3 India Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

3.1.4 India Edge Computing Market by Type

3.2 Latin America

3.2.1 Latin America Edge Computing Market by Value

3.2.2 Latin America Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

3.2.3 Brazil Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

3.2.4 Brazil Edge Computing Market by Type

3.3 Europe

3.3.1 Europe Edge Computing Market by Value

3.3.2 Europe Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

3.4 NAFTA

3.4.1 NAFTA Edge Computing Market by Value

3.4.2 NAFTA Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

3.5 Middle East/Africa

3.5.1 Middle East/Africa Edge Computing Market by Value

3.5.2 Middle East/Africa Edge Computing Market Forecast by Value

4. Market Dynamics

4.1 Growth Drivers

4.1.1 Increasing Global Population

4.1.2 Rising Urbanization

4.1.3 Rising Global Economy

4.1.4 Decreasing Arable Land

4.1.5 Growing Agriculture Production

4.2 Trends & Opportunities

4.2.1 Industry Consolidations

4.2.2 Increased Focus on R&D

4.2.3 High Growth Prospects in Emerging Economies

4.3 Challenges and Issues

4.3.1 Stringent Government Regulations

4.3.2 High Prices of Raw Materials

5. Competition

5.1 Global Market

5.1.1 Global Edge Computing Market Share by Company

5.2 Latin America

5.2.1 Brazil Edge Computing Market Share by Company

5.3 Asia/Pacific

5.3.1 India Edge Computing Market Share by Company

6. Company Profiles

6.1 key player 1

6.1.1 Business Overview

6.1.2 Financial Overview

6.1.3 Business Strategies

6.2 key player 2

6.2.1 Business Overview

6.2.2 Financial Overview

6.2.3 Business Strategies

6.3 key player 3

6.3.1 Business Overview

6.3.2 Financial Overview

6.3.3 Business Strategies

6.4 key player 4

6.4.1 Business Overview

6.4.2 Financial Overview

6.4.3 Business Strategies

….

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗨𝘀:
Mr. Shah
Coherent Market Insights
1001 4th Ave, #3200 Seattle, WA 98154, U.S.
Email: [email protected] 
United States of America: +1-206-701-6702
United Kingdom: +44-020-8133-4027
Japan: +050-5539-1737
India: +91-848-285-0837

Wed, 06 Jul 2022 03:35:00 -0500 Coherent Market Insights en-US text/html https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/edge-computing-market-changing-strategies-to-remain-competitive-ibm-corporation-cisco-systems-inc-intel-corporation-aricent-in
Killexams : Apple: Is The AR/VR Headset A Game Changer?
Japan, Tokyo, Ginza, Apple Store,

fazon1/iStock Editorial via Getty Images

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) has not released any new major product for some years now, with the Apple Car and the AR/VR headset the two most anticipated new products to be launched in the near future. However, these products should have a limited weight on the company's revenue mix and aren't likely to boost Apple's growth prospects significantly.

Product Diversification & Innovation

Apple is one of the largest companies in the world and has the most valuable brand globally, according to Interbrand. This clearly shows that it has a unique position in the technology sector, which was built based on its innovation capabilities and distinctive products.

Apple's current product portfolio is quite diverse among smartphones, tablets, laptops, and wearables plus its services offerings. Despite that, Apple is still heavily reliant on the iPhone, which represents more than half of its annual revenues, while other products have much smaller weights.

Due to its great success in the past, investors' and consumers' expectations for new products are usually quite high, and people are always expecting a new blowout product to come to the market soon. This has not exactly happened in accurate years, considering that the last major new product was the Apple Watch which was released in 2015, or seven years ago. This means that Apple has struggled over the past few years to truly innovate, failing to bring anything really new to the market.

Indeed, its strategy seems to have changed from developing new products and segments, such as the tablet in 2010, to focus on wearables and services, which have increased the weight on total revenues in a significant way throughout the past few years.

Considering that Apple has not launched a new major product for several years, this has led investors to increasingly question if Apple still has the capacity to innovate or if over the long-term Apple will take the footsteps of other large technology companies that have lost a dominant position in their industry, such as IBM (IBM). If that is the case, a much lower valuation may be warranted over the long term, as the company's growth prospects will not justify a premium valuation.

Nevertheless, taking into account Apple's historical innovation capacity, there has been some speculation about new products in accurate months, with the Apple Car and the Virtual Reality (VR) headset being the two most widely speculated products to be launched in the near future.

I've analyzed the Apple Car in a previous article, and I think it is a questionable move by the company to enter the auto industry and is not likely to represent much of its total revenues because it is expected to be focused on the luxury market. This means that the VR headset is the only new product that can potentially change Apple's revenue stream in a significant way in the near term, if consumer adoption is good for this product.

Apple's AR/VR Headset

While virtual reality/augmented reality (VR/AR) headsets are not particularly new, as they have been used especially in gaming for many years, a VR headset from Apple is highly anticipated and could, potentially, be a key factor for the development of the metaverse.

The metaverse is a virtual environment where people can be together in digital spaces, where people will be embodied rather than just looking at it. A critical technology to achieve this is augmented reality and virtual reality (AR/VR), which enables people to hang out, play games, work, and more in an immersive game-like world.

Meta Platforms (META) has been one of the companies which has invested more in this industry lately, as the company is betting big on the metaverse. Meta offers the Oculus Quest 2 VR, which has had some success and has sold some 15 million units since its launch in 2020, according to IDC. This shows that consumer adoption of VR headsets is growing rapidly, being increasingly used for other activities beyond gaming.

However, according to Grand View Research, the total addressable market (TAM) for VR headsets globally was only $21 billion in 2021, showing that this market is still relatively small. Growth prospects are good, taking into account that the expected CAGR is 15% from 2022-2030, which means the TAM is estimated to reach about $69 billion by 2030. As shown in the next graph, there are several applications for VR headsets, even though gaming is still the most used one.

VR market

VR applications (Grand View Research)

Despite this somewhat limited market size for VR headsets, a potential milestone for this technology can be reached next year, when Apple is expected to enter the AR/VR market with its own hardware. Given that Apple has a loyal customer base and a successful history in entering new markets, this can be a pivotal moment for vast adoption of VR technology, which can also be key for the success of the metaverse.

According to several leaks, Apple's highly anticipated VR headset is a high-end device that will combine virtual and augmented reality. Apple's goal is to compete with the best VRs available in the market and to be a separated product from the Apple Glasses, which are pure augmented reality. It is expected to use the new M2 chip, which means it could be as powerful as a MacBook Pro, and 16GB of RAM. The expectation is that the launch of the Apple VR will boost demand for associated AR games and apps, which are critical for its success over the long term.

Apple's AR/VR headset is expected to be like a typical VR headset, but with a number of exterior cameras and sensors that add extra functionality. This means it can offer body tracking, and incorporate real-world environments in a virtual space. This would be an edge over the Oculus 2 for instance, which is VR-only.

This new product was expected to enter the market during 2022, but reportedly there has been some push back due to development issues, namely overheating, cameras and software issues. The most accurate expectation is for development to be finalized by the end of this year, with the product expected to be on sale by 2023.

Even though an Apple VR headset can be an important product to boost growth in the AR/VR headset market, considering current estimates for TAM on a global basis, this product should not have a large weight on Apple's total revenues over the coming years. In its last fiscal year, Apple's revenues amounted to $365 billion and are projected to reach about $450 billion by 2025. Assuming that Apple's VR headset would be very successful and grab a 50% market share in three years, this would generate some $18 billion in revenues by fiscal year 2025. This means that the AR/VR headset would represent some 4% of Apple's total revenues, which would be a very small weight on the company's revenue mix.

AAPL Valuation

While Apple's growth was very strong over the past couple of years, boosted by the pandemic and higher demand for consumer electronics and also the 5G upgrade phase on the iPhone, the company's growth prospects in the next few years aren't particularly impressive. The current macroeconomic environment is challenging for large companies such as Apple that rely on consumer spending, which is expected to slow down due to lower economic activity across the globe.

This means that for Apple to report strong revenue growth it needs new products, but the AR/VR headset and the Apple Car are niche products and should have a limited impact on Apple's revenue growth. Indeed, considering sell-side estimates, its revenue growth expected in the next four fiscal years (including FY 2022) is only 5.8% per year, which is not particularly impressive.

Despite the lackluster revenue growth in the medium term, Apple's shares have been quite resilient during this bear market and are down only about 25% from their all-time highs, a much better performance than compared to most technology companies. This means that its valuation has not de-rated much in accurate months, and is still trading at a higher level than its historical average, as shown in the next graph.

Apple P/E

Valuation (Bloomberg)

Apple is currently trading at 21.4x next twelve months' earnings while its historical average over the past five years is 20.8x. However, before the pandemic, its maximum valuation multiple was 22x forward earnings, and only during the bubble of 2020-21 did it reach an extreme valuation above 30x earnings. Moreover, prior to 2020, its valuation multiple was usually in the range of 10-15x earnings, a multiple that seems more appropriate for a company that is projected to grow its revenues by mid-single-digit over the next few years.

Thus, despite its accurate correction, Apple's shares can be considered to still be overvalued right now and further downside is likely ahead, as current estimates may be too optimistic if major developed economies enter into a recession in the coming months and demand for its products decline as people will be less willing to buy high-end products.

Conclusion

Apple is a great company and historically innovation has been one of its key strengths, a situation that has changed in accurate years as the company has struggled to offer new products that make a real impact on its revenue mix. The Apple Car and the AR/VR headset are the two most highly anticipated new products to enter the market, but most likely they will be niche products that will not be a game-changer for the company's fundamentals.

While Apple has great fundamentals, its growth prospects are somewhat low and this is not reflected in its current valuation. For long-term investors, this means Apple is a 'hold' right now, but if you are an investor that is sensitive to market timing, then it's probably best to sell Apple's shares as new products aren't likely to boost its growth by much in the next few years.

Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:48:00 -0500 en text/html https://seekingalpha.com/article/4520977-apple-is-the-arvr-headset-a-game-changer
P2090-032 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List