Resultados 1 a 5 de 5
  1. #1
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    [EN] Ações da IBM disparam 10% na NYSE

    Shares had the second-biggest one-day price gain in their history

    IBM’s stock surge is one for the history books

    Tomi Kilgore
    Oct 18, 2017

    International Business Machines Corp.’s stock had a day that will stand out in history books, as the company formerly known as Big Blue shocked investors with the best earnings report they have seen in nearly nine years.

    The stock rocketed $13 Wednesday to the highest close in nearly six months, after the information technology company reported third-quarter profit and revenue the beat Wall Street expectations.

    Beating profit projections wasn’t a surprise, since IBM has now done so for 12 straight quarters, but the stock rallying after results is a relative rarity. And Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty said the latest beat marks “a real inflection point,” as it came amid “low investor expectations” and helps support the belief that the gross margin trend is now rising.

    “Importantly, our quant analysis suggests IBM shares outperform the technology market on improving market trends,” Huberty wrote in a note to clients.

    IBM’s stock was still down 3.9% year to date, while the SPDR Technology Select Sector exchange-traded fund has surged 26% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has advanced 17%.

    Huberty reiterated her overweight rating and $192 stock price target. Meanwhile, the average rating of 27 analysts surveyed by FactSet is the equivalent of hold, and the average stock price target is $161.

    The following provides some historical perspective for how well IBM’s stock performed Wednesday:

    The stock’s one-day post-earnings percentage gain was the biggest since Jan. 21, 2009, when it rallied 11.5% after IBM reported fourth-quarter 2008 results. On the days after the 34 quarterly reports since then, before late-Tuesday’s report, the stock had only gained nine times by an average of 3.1%. The gains ranged from as little as less than 0.1% to as much as 5.7%.

    The one-day percentage rise was the ninth biggest this millennium, and the 18th biggest in the stock’s history, according to an analysis of FactSet data.

    The price gain was the second biggest in its history, just behind the biggest price rally of $13.50 on July 20, 2000. It was only the fifth double-digit gain in its history.

    The price and percentage gains are by far the biggest since Virginia “Ginni” Rometty became chief executive officer on Jan. 1, 2012. The previous biggest percentage gain during her reign was 4.4% on Jan. 20, 2012, while the previous biggest price gain was $8.64 on Jan. 23, 2013. Since Rometty became CEO, the stock has declined 13% while the Dow industrials have surged 89%.

    That price gain is adding about 89 points to the Dow industrials’, which was climbed 160 points to a record close.

    IBM’s stock entered the Dow on June 29, 1979. Since then, it has run up nearly ninefold, while the Dow’s price has been multiplied by 27.5.

  2. #2
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    IBM gets a boost from cloud computing

    IBM has been a massive underperformer over the last several years, falling more than 20 percent since 2012 while the Dow Jones industrial average is up nearly 70 percent in that time.

    Paul R. La Monica
    October 18, 2017:

    IBM reported Tuesday that sales and profits topped forecasts. The stock surged 10% on the news Wednesday, helping to lift the Dow more than 150 points and pushing it past 23,000.

    But IBM is still down 4% this year, making it one of the Dow's worst performers -- and with good reason.

    Sales were better than analysts' expectations, but they still fell slightly from a year ago to $19.2 billion. That's the 22nd consecutive quarter of year-over-year revenue declines for IBM -- not a streak that any company wants.

    What's more, IBM's profits continue to be lifted by a super low tax bill. It paid just an 11% tax rate globally in the third quarter.

    IBM critics argue that the company is benefiting from various tax loopholes to justify its lower rate and thereby boosting earnings in the process.

    In other words, the earnings growth would be much lower if IBM paid a tax rate closer to what many other companies pay. That could be as high as 39% in the U.S. when factoring in current federal and state tax rates.

    The company has continually pointed out that it has operations around the world where corporate taxes are much lower.

    CFO Martin Schroeter said during a conference call with analysts on Tuesday that it does business in 162 countries. That is a key reason why its tax rate is so low.

    But President Trump and Republicans in Congress are hoping to push that rate lower in order to entice companies like IBM to bring cash it has sitting overseas (which is usually taxed at a lower rate) back to America.

    IBM ended the third quarter with $11.5 billion in cash. It uses a chunk of its cash every quarter to buy back stock and pay a dividend to shareholders. So it's possible IBM could boost the dividend and buybacks further if it is taxed at an even lower rate.

    That could anger activists who already think that IBM is benefiting too much from low global tax rates.

    Still, there is undeniably good news for IBM beyond its relatively puny tax bill.

    The company, which has struggled in the past few years because of a shift in the technology landscape, is finally starting to benefit from investments it's made in cloud computing and other more dynamic and rapidly growing areas of tech.

    IBM's revenue from cloud computing businesses grew by 20% in the quarter to $4.1 billion. Cloud revenue now accounts for more than 20% of Big Blue's overall revenue.

    There also continues to be slow and steady growth in its Cognitive Solutions unit, which includes Watson applications for health care companies and financial firms. Revenues rose 4% in the quarter to $4.4 billion.

    Continued growth from the cloud, Watson, security software (where revenues surged 51% in the third quarter) and older businesses like mainframes and storage could help IBM finally end its ignominious streak of falling sales in the fourth quarter.

    Schroeter said during the conference call that sales could be $2.8 billion to $2.9 billion higher in the fourth quarter than they were in the third quarter. That works out to $22 billion to $22.1 billion. Big Blue's sales in the fourth quarter of 2016 were $21.8 billion.

  3. #3
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    IBM Rocks The Cloud: Customers Love Big Blue's $15.8-Billion Cloud Business

    Bob Evans
    Oct 18, 2017

    Infuriating uptight cloud-definition purists while delighting its forward-looking customers, 106-year-old IBM Corp. has posted $15.8 billion in trailing-12-month cloud revenue, including $7 billion from helping clients convert traditional systems into cloud environments optimized for today's digital-business economy.

    Underscoring the breadth and depth of CEO Ginni Rometty's transformation of IBM into an AI and cloud powerhouse is the fact that cloud revenue now accounts for 20% of the company's overall revenue. And on the strength of those results, IBM could soon be moving up on my Cloud Wars Top 10 rankings (see related chart nearby).

    IBM's AI-centric and cloud-centric revolution extends all the way out to its new z14 mainframe, which became available in the last two weeks of the quarter and offers extensive capabilities for Machine Learning and pervasive encryption. During IBM's earnings call yesterday, CFO Martin Schroeter said the z14 has "been reinvented again for the cognitive and cloud era, as well as an ideal platform for blockchain."

    Here I need to insert a "trigger" warning for all of the cloud-category and cloud-definition ankle-biters out there who are no doubt flying into conniptions at the very suggestion that "mainframe" and "cloud" can be used in the same sentence, let alone that anyone would actually try to deploy such a thing. And my warning is this: for you folks who obsess over theoretical inside-baseball arcana rather than the practical realities of what flesh-and-blood businesses want and need to thrive in the world of digital business, what you're about to hear will only get worse!

    First of all, customers love what IBM's doing, and they're rewarding IBM for applying its massive expertise and experience and talent and resources toward helping those businesses exploit the cloud to become digital enterprises that can keep up with the wildly gyrating demands of today's digital-first consumers. With so many cloud competitors to choose from, why would those businesses choose IBM--which various observers have been attempting to dismiss as incapable of making the Big Switch to the cloud--unless IBM has proven it's able to do things for them that other vendors can only dream about?

    Second, IBM's stock price has soared about 10% since yesterday afternoon's earnings call—so Wall Street is joining business customers in endorsing IBM's strategy and execution.

    Third, IBM's global customers—many of them among the world's largest and most successful corporations—willingly committed $7 billion to IBM and its technology and its expertise to help those corporations convert or transform existing IT systems into cloud environments.

    And regardless of what business you're in, $7 billion is a lot of money representing a lot of trust and a lot of potential. Here's how IBM describes what it did to get that $7-billion portion of its overall $15.8 billion in cloud revenue over the past 12 months: "hardware, software and services to enable IBM clients to implement comprehensive cloud solutions."

    I can hear the howling now: "But that's not cloud! Cloud has to be IaaS or SaaS or PaaS—if it's not that, it's not cloud!! IBM's lying!"

    But back here on Planet Earth, what IBM is doing is exactly what all the best tech companies are doing as they try to expand more deeply into the cloud and/or best align their traditional products and services with their new cloud offerings: pursue the power of incumbency.

    Look at Microsoft: it's elegantly and powerfully enmeshed its incumbent leadership on hundreds of millions of desktops into the cloud with Microsoft 365.

    Oracle is pouring everything it can into leveraging its massive incumbent position in databases into various offerings of database as a service.

    Amazon knows how to sell online better than any company that's ever existed, and it fully and successfully exploited that incumbency as a key attribute in its hugely successful Amazon Web Services business.

    So why in the world would IBM not parlay into extraordinary incumbency in data centers and across IT organizations by throwing everything it has—hardware, software and services—into helping those corporations align and convert as much of that incumbent infrastructure and software to the cloud?

    It's clearly something that many, many businesses want and need—like I said, $7 billion is a big number—and it's clearly something IBM's become very good at. So if some textbook on what cloud is and what it doesn't include an outline of this very real $7-billion business, why in the heck should anybody give a hoot?

    My point about the ankle-biters is this: in the early days of emerging technologies, some sense of common definitions can be helpful. But as those technologies take on lives of their own out in the real world, academic arguments and whiteboard diagrams are swept aside in favor of practical, tangible and innovative approaches that could not be foreseen back in those early days.

    As the prating and foot-stomping of such uptight purists become not only silly but counterproductive, more decision-makers wisely overlook all the hand-wringing and turn their focus to where it should be: making their businesses smarter and faster and more digital; tapping into cloud and AI vendors that can unleash the full capabilities of those businesses; and becoming obsessively focused on delivering what customers want and need in our rapidly changing world.

    IBM is delivering exactly that, and is doing so in ways that are delighting its customers and investors—the stock's up about 10% today, which adds about $15 billion to IBM's market cap. And this is not a one-time fluke—IBM has more annual cloud revenue than any Amazon or any other cloud provider.

    The Cloud Wars are getting more intense each day, and the stakes are soaring as business leaders are fully embracing the cloud as the primary platform that will help them have the best shot at becoming modern, customer-focused, and fast-moving digital businesses. The cloud is no longer a theory or an idea—it is a widespread business reality, and its impact is growing at a stunning rate.

    So all you ankle-biters out there, it looks like it's time to stop obsessing over NIST definitions and start looking at what real, live businesses are actually doing with this extraordinary new technology—because that's where the world is going, regardless of how well it does or does not conform to your silly and utterly irrelevant rules.

  4. #4
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010


    Citação Postado originalmente por 5ms Ver Post

    IBM's profits continue to be lifted by a super low tax bill. It paid just an 11% tax rate globally in the third quarter.

    IBM critics argue that the company is benefiting from various tax loopholes to justify its lower rate and thereby boosting earnings in the process.

    In other words, the earnings growth would be much lower if IBM paid a tax rate closer to what many other companies pay. That could be as high as 39% in the U.S. when factoring in current federal and state tax rates.

    The company has continually pointed out that it has operations around the world where corporate taxes are much lower.

    CFO Martin Schroeter said during a conference call with analysts on Tuesday that it does business in 162 countries. That is a key reason why its tax rate is so low.

    But President Trump and Republicans in Congress are hoping to push that rate lower in order to entice companies like IBM to bring cash it has sitting overseas (which is usually taxed at a lower rate) back to America.

    So it's possible IBM could boost the dividend and buybacks further if it is taxed at an even lower rate.

    That could anger activists who already think that IBM is benefiting too much from low global tax rates.

    In this installment, Equitable Growth’s Executive Director and Chief Economist Heather Boushey talks with Kimberly A. Clausing, the Thormund A. Miller and Walter Mintz Professor of Economics at Reed College. They discuss tax reform, changes to the corporate income tax, and who gains when taxes on capital are cut. [Editor’s note: This conversation took place on Monday, September 25, 2017.]

    Boushey:The White House recently released some more guidance [previews of the Administration’s Unified Framework] on its tax plans but not really anything specific. The ball is now with Congress, so I’m going to try and keep this conversation at a high level.

    Often here in Washington, D.C., when the economic policymaking community talks about taxes, it’ll say that the federal government needs to change the tax rate and broaden the base, increasing the amount of income that is taxed. So, when it comes to the corporate tax, what in your view actually needs to be fixed? Is it the tax rate or is it the base?

    Clausing: I think the tax rate is important for some companies, but companies in the United States pay a lot of different tax rates, and for some of them, effective tax rates are very low. For the big multinational companies, the federal statutory rate [of 35 percent] bears little resemblance to what they’re actually paying. And many of those big companies have even gone on the record in saying that they don’t care primarily about the statutory tax rate; they care more about other things. But many smaller companies that pay closer to the statutory rate do care a lot about the rate.

    One of the really interesting features of our business landscape today is that there’s a lot of concentration of activity and profit at the very top of business ladder, just like there’s a concentration of income at the very top of our income distribution. If you look at the top 1 percent of corporate returns, big corporations account for the vast majority of all the profit, more than 90 percent. And those firms are disproportionally multinational, and they’re disproportionately likely to have profits derived from intangibles assets. And these companies are able to reduce their tax burdens in part by shifting income out of the United States toward other countries. And my work suggests such profit shifting is presently costing the U.S. government more than $100 billion each year in lost tax revenue.

    So, I think good corporate-tax reform could both lower the tax rate and increase the tax base, and that would please economists and policy wonks. But it’s not clear that the corporate community is driven by both of those objectives.

    Boushey: Tell me a little bit more of why so many of those firms at the top of distribution do not pay the statutory rate.

    Clausing: Some of the base narrowing comes from simple things such as the research and experimentation tax credit, the production activities deduction, and other various provisions that lower the tax rate. But the biggest driver is international profit shifting.

    Companies such as General Electric Co., for instance, have used the rules of our tax system to move income that really should be in the U.S. tax base to other jurisdictions—often in tax-havens. As a consequence, their effective tax rates are often in the single-digits. In General Electric’s case, its effective rate is nearly zero over the past decade or so here in the United States. Yet the company is still earning billions of dollars over that period throughout the world. It’s just that most of the income is being artificially moved offshore. And so, when you look at its taxes paid on U.S. income, it’s quite low.

    Boushey: As we broaden the base, are there ways to do this so that we get around that problem?

    Clausing: Yes. There are a couple of things that policymakers could do. For instance, one of the largest tax expenditures in the business area is deferral, which is this idea that you don’t have to pay U.S. tax on your foreign income until it’s repatriated. The companies that benefit from this want to remove that repatriation tax entirely and create a super-highway of tax avoidance where there’s no speed limit and you can simply shift profits to the islands [tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or Bermuda] and never worry about the U.S. government taxing it.

    But a more effective way to proceed would be to still tax that income. We can combine taxation of foreign income with a lower rate (and a tax credit for foreign taxes paid), but we’ll actually collect the tax due at that lower rate. On a revenue-neutral basis, policymakers could probably lower the corporate tax rate to about 25 or 26 percent, get rid of deferral, and end up with the same amount of revenue. Basically, what would happen is that tax revenue would go up for the multinational firms that are shifting their income out of the U.S. tax base, and tax revenue would fall for domestic companies that aren’t using these techniques, and those two effects would cancel out.

    Now, that approach is extremely unpopular with the multinational business community. One option short of that idea, but still moving in that direction, would be a per-country minimum tax, where you basically limit U.S. taxation of foreign income to countries with very low tax rates. So, if a multinational firm earns income in a tax-haven jurisdiction such as Switzerland or Luxembourg, then the United States applies a minimum tax as the income is earned. If these big firms’ profits haven’t been taxed substantially abroad, then the U.S. federal government reserves the right to tax it at some other rate.

    The Obama administration championed this sort of per-country minimum tax regime, suggesting a minimum tax rate of 19 percent, but it wasn’t very popular with the business community. From its perspective, whatever tax rate is chosen for the minimum tax, it will still be a lot higher than zero. So, there are going to be political problems getting that idea through Congress. Still, it is a promising approach.

    Boushey: Walk us through this kind of international profit shifting. What’s the scale? Is this the biggest problem we need to solve? Are there other problems that are just as big or is this one above and beyond any other?

    Clausing: I think that this is the biggest tax base problem on the corporate side. My estimates suggest this costs the U.S. government about $100 billion a year, which is pretty big.

    Boushey: You could invest in a lot of infrastructure with that.

    Clausing: Yes, and there are other ways that our corporate tax base has eroded. Look at the interest deductibility provisions, for instance. Those imply that many companies actually face a negative corporate tax rate on debt financed investments, which also lowers tax revenues in the business sector. Also, there is the lost tax revenue from pass-through income, which also is calculated to cost about $100 billion from the domestic side of business income. There’s a nice study by eight economists, five from the U.S. Treasury Department, that shows that the average tax rate paid by pass-throughs is 19 percent, which is far lower than the statutory corporate rate.

    Última edição por 5ms; 19-10-2017 às 22:26.

  5. #5
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Boushey: One of the arguments that you hear time and time again for why Congress needs to reduce the corporate tax rate is that doing so will boost investment in overall economic growth. Tell us a little bit about how strongly investment would react to a reduction in the tax rate at the corporate side?

    Clausing: On the corporate side, there are a couple of considerations to keep in mind. One is that the distribution of corporate income within the tax base is highly skewed, with about three-quarters of it due to excess profits or rents. What are excess profits or rents? Well, there’s a normal return of capital, which enables a company to pay the interest costs or the equity costs of raising capital, but any income earned above that normal return is an excess profit.

    For those firms that have a lot of excess profits—the Googles and Apples and General Electrics of the world—they are earning more than we normally expect for business activity. It’s not clear that giving them a windfall is going to lead to new investments. They already have more than enough after-tax profits from which to make investments.

    If policymakers believe more after-tax profits are the way to suddenly spur investment, we might ask why it hasn’t already happened, since these kinds of firms are sitting on piles of cash. It’s unclear that giving them a bigger pile of cash is going to spur investment. We need companies to have desirable investments. And often what’s stopping them is not the absence of funds, but the absence of viable investments they want to make. If policymakers really think after-tax profits are what’s needed to drive investment, then we should already be in an investment nirvana, since lately we’ve had much higher profits than we’ve ever had in the past 50 years of our history.

    Boushey: And yet our investment rate is quite low right now.

    Clausing: Right. That’s why I don’t think after-tax profits are the answer.

    Boushey: When talking to business owners, there is a wide range of things that drive their investment decisions—everything from consumer demand or where they sit in the supply chain or the quality of infrastructure around them that makes it possible to leverage their investment. Is there anything that you want to add to that list?

    Clausing: When you get into tax reform debates, the business community acts as if tax is the only thing that drives its competitiveness, whereas investment decisions and competitiveness are really driven by a lot of other factors. Infrastrucrure, the education of the workforce, the health of the middle class—these are all crucial things for business success and competitive businesses. And, from a policy perspective, it is likely more important to focus on these factors than on making after-tax profits that are already historically high even higher. And funding education and infrastructure requires government revenue.

    So, at a minimum, policymakers should pursue revenue-neutral reform, but there’s actually a case for revenue-gaining reform right now. If you look in the next decade, we are going to have 2 percentage points of GDP in additional deficits because of our commitments to the baby boomer generation’s Medicare and Social Security benefits. Also, to expand business investment opportunities, the federal government needs to make investments in infrastructure and education and in a healthy middle class.

    Also, right now the U.S. economy is amid a historically long expansion, which means we’re due for a recession before long. That in itself will drive up deficits, so this seems like a particularly poor time to reduce the revenue stream for all those reasons.

    Boushey: If a tax reduction in the statutory rate isn’t going to do much to boost investment, explain to us how it will actually boost the wage of the workers. President Trump and the Republican leaders in Congress claim that tax reform will boost the middle class.

    Clausing: They are relying on this idea that corporate tax cuts raise investments, which raise worker productivity, and then higher worker productivity translates into higher wages. You’ll notice several things have to happen for corporate tax cuts to cause a wage increase, and each step entails some faith and some luck.

    Start with the fact that the corporate tax base is mostly excess profits, so we’re not sure that extra profits are going to stir extra investment. But even if it did serve to boost investment, that would still have to translate into a wage increase for workers. The evidence on this point is pretty thin on the ground. There is some evidence from Europe that if companies with excess profits receive tax cuts, they’ll share those with their workers, but that’s not the same as causing a wage increase for workers as a whole. If policymakers give Google a big tax cut and Google employees get paid more, that’s nice for the Google employees but it’s not necessarily helping the workers in the economy as a whole.

    And we have so many easier ways to help workers directly that it seems odd to rely on such an indirect mechanism. Extending the earned income tax credit is a great way to target the employment and wages at the bottom of the income distribution. Or how about giving the middle class a tax cut by lopping a couple of percentage points off the payroll tax? All of those would go straight to the workers. We have mechanisms in place already that target workers directly, so it seems odd to rely on this very indirect mechanism.

    Boushey: So, it doesn’t seem like lowering the statutory tax rate is actually going to spur the kinds of investments that are going to get us to that point where productivity gains translate into higher wages for workers.

    Clausing: There are better ways to target worker productivity structured around R&D investments, infrastructure investments, and education investments.

    Boushey: My last questions. What’s a piece of research on this topic that doesn’t exist today that you would like to see, and what’s the question on business taxation you really wish we had more evidence on?

    Clausing: I’d like to see a lot more research on the excess profits question. How important are excess profits in the modern picture of business activity? A lot of anecodotal data suggests this is a very important issue in today’s global economy, but I don’t think we have a clear picture of just how important.

    I also think that there’s some promise in getting a better picture of profit-shifting behavior if we get access to better data on these questions. One of the things that the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] and the G-20 [Group of Twenty] has worked on is a “Base Erosion and Profit Shfiting” initiative. And one of their items for action is to improve the public access to data on profit shifting. For example, if there were more researcher access to tax data of multinational company earnings, we could get closer to figuring out what’s happening inside the multinational firms.

    Also, another one of the recommendations of that OECD group is for country by country reporting, where firms would have to tell each country government where they are earning off their profits. And just by shedding light on what’s going on, this helps curtail some of the profit-shifting activities. And if we made that reporting public as well, it shines a light on the activities of the company. The companies themselves don’t want it—they make the argument that this will basically give away some of their business secrets. But you have to ask, why is how much income you’re booking in the Caymans a business secret? Isn’t that itself a problem?

    And if you are really too embarrassed to admit to the public that 90 percent of the company’s income is being booked on an island, then don’t do that in the first place. So, I think there are ways to use corporate social responsibility motives and transparency. More information will help harness the power of consumers and workers and shareholders so that we can better allocate our purchasing and investment and employment decisions. So, I think that would be a minor step forward.

    Boushey: To clarify something: So, all that money that’s sitting on those islands—is it literally just sitting there? Or is it being loaned out and invested in boosting economic capacity somewhere?

    Clausing: It is being invested—in fact if you look at the data, about 50 percent of it is back in U.S. financial markets—so, you’re certainly allowed to make types of investments with this money. You’re not allowed to return it to your shareholders as dividends or share repurchases, but you can invest it in a financial institution, and that often makes the funds available to U.S. capital markets.

    This repatriation issue is an important one because we are distorting repatriation decisions by having this repatriation tax. But I don’t think we’re dramatically changing the investments found in the United States. The companies that have profits abroad can borrow against them to finance any desired investment. And some of the money isn’t really truly abroad—it’s invested in U.S. assets. To the extent that U.S. investment opportunities are high, we will draw more of the capital into the United States regardless.

    But there are still good reasons to get rid of that distortion—I think either ending deferral or the per-country minimum tax would be an important move in that direction. Of course, the territorial system gets rid of this distortion too, but then you run the risk of exacerbating our large profit-shifting problem unless you’re serious about base protection.

Permissões de Postagem

  • Você não pode iniciar novos tópicos
  • Você não pode enviar respostas
  • Você não pode enviar anexos
  • Você não pode editar suas mensagens