Author Archives: Scalper1

Google Transparency Project Sees Google-Government ‘Revolving Door’

Google, the search leader and main company of parent firm Alphabet ( GOOGL ), has outsized influence on government officials and public policies, says the nonprofit Google Transparency Project, which launched a searchable database on the issue on Tuesday. Google Transparency Project is a research initiative of Campaign for Accountability, which says that it “uses research, litigation and aggressive communications to expose how decisions made behind the doors of corporate boardrooms and government offices impact Americans’ lives.” The group said in a statement , “The project will compile and organize data from public sources and make it available for (public) review.” “Google knows more about us than we know about ourselves, but we know surprisingly little about Google and how it actually operates,” Anne Weismann, executive director of Campaign for Accountability, said in the statement. “Google has long been a strong advocate of transparency in government, business and even users’ private lives. It has not, however, been transparent about its own dealings with the government.” Weismann said that the new project “will shine a light on how Google influences our government officials, public policies and the way we live.” When contacted by IBD, an official with the nonprofit said that it does not reveal its funding sources. “We do not disclose our donors,” said Daniel Stevens, Campaign for Accountability deputy director. “I cannot comment on any aspect of it. For 501(c)(3) (nonprofits), we have to disclose it (funding sources) to the IRS, but it’s not something that has to be publicly available.” The group’s first data release says that 427 meetings involving Google’s employees or associated entities have occurred since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009 through October 2015 — more than one a week. The project also sees a “revolving door,” with some employees moving from Google to government jobs and vice versa. “The data set highlights the astonishing level of traffic between the two in both directions: 251 people either moved from Google into government or vice versa since Obama took office,” according to the group’s statement. Weismann served as chief counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and as deputy chief of the Federal Communications Commission’s Enforcement Bureau, where she had responsibility for the bureau’s telecom matters. Alphabet stock was near 733, down more than 1% in afternoon trading on the stock market today .

HTC Vive Gutted: Micron Chips Stomp Facebook’s Oculus Rift

HTC Vive pummels Facebook ( FB )-owned Oculus Rift in terms of memory, but both tapped Apple ( AAPL ) supplier Texas Instruments ( TXN ) to lead their virtual reality headsets, teardowns from iFixit show . On Tuesday, iFixit unveiled its “Vive-section,” gutting HTC’s VR device to discover four Texas Instruments chips, including a variant on the 16-channel LED driver discovered inside the Rift. But the devices diverge largely on memory. Micron Technology ( MU ) supplies four Vive chips accounting for 72 megabits of flash memory vs. a single Winbond 64-MB chip supplying memory for the Rift. Vive and Rift both employ STMicroelectronics ( STM ) for an ARM-based microcontroller, and the former added in an STM transceiver for speed data transmission. Both also use a Toshiba converter. C-Media supplied an audio controller for the Vive, whereas Oculus tapped Apple supplier Cirrus Logic ( CRUS ) for the Rift audio codec. HTC chose InvenSense ( INVN ) for its two gyroscope/accelerometer combos, vs. a Bosch Sensortec inertial sensor inside the Rift. HTC also added three NXP Semiconductors ( NXPI ) microcontrollers and a Broadcom ( AVGO ) Bluetooth smart system-on-a-chip. Nordic Semiconductor provided Bluetooth for the Rift. After broadly falling 1.3% Monday on Wall Street, IBD’s 41-company Electronic-Semiconductor Fabless industry group was up nearly 2% in afternoon trading on the stock market today . Micron stock was up more than 9.5%, after rival SK Hynix reported Q1 sales and earnings that fell sequentially and year over year in a tough DRAM (dynamic random-access memory) PC environment. NXP stock was up 4.5% after topping Q1 earnings views late Tuesday and ahead of Apple’s fiscal Q2 report late Tuesday. On Monday, NXP stock fell 1.2% on after an iFixit teardown showed Apple included Intel ( INTC ) and Broadcom inside its Retina MacBook 2016, but not NXP. Shares of fellow Apple suppliers InvenSense, Cirrus Logic and Broadcom were up a respective 4.5%, 2% and 1.5%. STMicroelectronics stock was up nearly 3%, and Texas Instruments stock was up a fraction.

Measuring Performance Vs. A Benchmark: The Case Of The Low Volatility Factor

When is tracking error not really an error? By Nick Kalivas, Senior Equity Product Strategist, Invesco PowerShares Traditional indexes were never intended to define what makes a sound investment opportunity, which has fueled the popularity of factor-based investing. But they do serve as useful benchmarks for investment performance. How closely a portfolio or index tracks a particular benchmark index is referred to as “tracking error.” Tracking error is often considered in the context of a portfolio relative to an underlying index. But tracking error can also exist between two indexes, which raises questions. Take, for example, the case of low volatility investing – one of the most popular investment factors in use today. Could the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index – a commonly used barometer of low volatility stock performance – result in too much tracking error relative to its parent index, the S&P 500 Index? Because the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index selects 100 stocks from its parent index with the lowest realized volatility over the previous year, the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index can have sector exposure that is materially underweight or overweight relative to the S&P 500 Index. Should this be a concern? That depends on your perspective. The relationships between tracking error and low volatility exposure The table below shows the impact of blending the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index with the S&P 500 Index over a five-year period. It reveals a number of informational nuggets. Relationship between low volatility exposure, tracking error and performance April 30, 2011, through March 31, 2016 Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. First off, note the correlation between factor tilt and performance. During this time period, investors who had more low volatility exposure realized higher absolute and risk-adjusted returns. By itself, an allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index outperformed the S&P 500 Index by 22.5% (13.60% to 11.10%), with 24.4% less volatility (9.30% to 12.30%) over the five-year period. The results are consistent with the low volatility anomaly, which states that low volatility stocks may outperform higher volatility stocks and the broader market on an absolute and risk-adjusted basis.1 Note that the return per unit of risk increases as the low volatility factor tilt increases (0.90 for a 100% S&P 500 Index allocation, for example, to 1.22 with a 50-50 blend). Also note the proportional correlation between allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index and tracking error. The chart below plots this relationship alongside risk-adjusted return. Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. As you can see, the relationship between low volatility factor exposure and tracking error is linear. Tracking error is relatively small when small amounts of low volatility are blended into the S&P 500 Index. A portfolio with a 30% weighting in low volatility stocks, for example, had less than a 2.50% tracking error to the S&P 500 Index; 50-50 blend produced 4% tracking error. Keep in mind, though, that risk-adjusted returns also improved with increased tracking error. What all of this implies is that investors and their advisors can mix and match according to their comfort level. Blending material amounts of the low volatility factor into a portfolio will likely lead to increased tracking error relative to the S&P 500 Index, but can also enhance the performance of a portfolio on both an absolute and risk adjusted basis. What’s your choice? Learn more about the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPLV ). Read more blogs by Nick Kalivas . Important information Correlation is the degree to which two investments have historically moved in relation to each other. Tracking error measures the divergence between price behavior of a portfolio and the price behavior of a benchmark. Volatility measures the standard deviation from a mean of historical prices of a security or portfolio over time. The S&P 500® Low Volatility Index consists of the 100 stocks from the S&P 500® Index with the lowest realized volatility over the past 12 months. An investment cannot be made into an index. Typically, security classifications used in calculating allocation tables are as of the last trading day of the previous month. There are risks involved with investing in ETFs, including possible loss of money. Shares are not actively managed and are subject to risks similar to those of stocks, including those regarding short selling and margin maintenance requirements. Ordinary brokerage commissions apply. The Fund’s return may not match the return of the Underlying Index. The Fund is subject to certain other risks. Please see the current prospectus for more information regarding the risk associated with an investment in the Fund. Investments focused in a particular industry or sector, such as the industrials sector are subject to greater risk, and are more greatly impacted by market volatility, than more diversified investments. The Fund is non-diversified and may experience greater volatility than a more diversified investment. There is no assurance that the Fund will provide low volatility. The Global Industry Classification Standard was developed by and is the exclusive property and a service mark of MSCI, Inc. and Standard & Poor’s. S&P® is a registered trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P) and Dow Jones® is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones). These trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. S&P® and Standard & Poor’s® are trademarks of S&P and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones. These trademarks have been sublicensed for certain purposes by Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). The Index is a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and/or its affiliates and has been licensed for use by Invesco PowerShares. The Fund is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates and neither S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s). Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. Business relationship disclosure: This article was posted on the Invesco PowerShares’ blog by an Invesco PowerShares’ employee on April 21, 2016: http://www.blog.invesco.us.com/measuring-performance-vs-benchmark-low-volatility-factor