Tag Archives: apple
Microsoft, Not Apple Or Alphabet, Is Wearables King … In Patents
The 2014 debut of Apple’s iWatch and the release of the Google Glass computing eyewear the prior year stamped both tech giants as leading innovators of wearables. Except that neither Apple ( AAPL ) nor Google parent Alphabet ( GOOGL ) is actually the leading innovator in wearables. Microsoft ( MSFT ) is. At least, Microsoft is No. 1 worldwide when looking at patents for wearable-related technology, according to LexInnova, a patents-consulting firm. Microsoft has 757 wearables patent filings, Rana Pratap, LexInnova’s principal consultant for technology, told IBD. At least 53 filings are directly related to wrist devices. Another 13 are related to eyewear. Netherlands-based Philips ( PHG ) is right behind in wearables-related intellectual property, with 756 wearables patents and patent applications. Alphabet, parent of Google, has 602 to place at No. 3, and the patent numbers drop off precipitously from there, says LexInnova, which recently researched the topic . Apple, for instance, has only 197 filings, says LexInnova. Wearables startup Fitbit ( FIT ) has 192 filings. That is a good bit of patent activity, but then again, this market is already generating a good bit of revenue. “We estimate the wearables market at $8.9 billion in wholesale device revenue in 2015,” Cliff Raskind, an analyst for market research firm Strategy Analytics, told IBD. While some of Microsoft’s wearables portfolio is getting old — U.S. patents last no more than 20 years — Pratap says that, collectively, the patents remain strong. So, Microsoft’s wearables patent portfolio doesn’t just have quantity, but also quality. LexInnova uses a proprietary algorithm involving about 50 factors, including patent age, the number of times a patent has been cited in other companies’ patent filings, and court rejection of challenges to a patent, to judge the quality of patent portfolios, Pratap explains. Without giving details, he said Microsoft’s is strong. What Are Microsoft’s Plans For Wearables? But the ramifications of Microsoft’s wearables-patent activity are unclear. Satya Nadella, who was promoted to Microsoft CEO two years ago, is focused on companywide strategies designed to recharge Microsoft’s growth. Microsoft, like any company, could develop products based on its patents, license its patents or both. The company last month disclosed that it has signed 1,200 licensing agreements of all kinds since launching its IP licensing program in December 2003. One of the most recent agreements involved licensing wearables-related technology to Olio Devices, a niche watchmaker. “Maybe Microsoft has been watching what Google’s doing (with technology licenses) and longingly remembering their big (operating system) licensing days,” said Raskind. “That could be where they are going with the Olio deal.” Pratap says 700 of Microsoft’s wearables patents are based on Microsoft’s own research. “According to our analysis, 49 patents and applications (were) acquired from Tangis,” he said. Microsoft acquired another seven from Osterhout Group and one was acquired from Antenova. So what, if anything, is Microsoft planning in wearables? “I’m not necessarily watching for a Microsoft wearables pop-up retail store next Christmas,” said Amy Webb, founder of technology forecasting and strategy consulting firm Webbmedia Group. Webb and others say there are more lucrative, near-term markets for wearables for Microsoft to exploit with its portfolio. More on that in a moment… Microsoft’s intellectual-property cache might surprise some. The company sells only one internally developed wearable product, the Band 2 fitness tracker bracelet, and executives say they will begin selling eyewear called HoloLens by April. Plus, executives rarely discuss Microsoft’s large overall patent portfolio. Indeed, Microsoft declined to comment for this story. “Whenever we do a patent analysis like this, we find that the biggest (technology) companies in a sector have the most patent filings,” Pratap said, thanks to their often large research-and-development units. R&D spending by Microsoft has been gradually rising since 2010, reaching $12 billion in 2015, according to market-statistics firm Statista. Pratap points out that Microsoft’s wearables portfolio began before it had a wearables product line. The earliest relevant patents resulted from other research projects. Over time, these innovations were recognized as addressing the new wearables market. This is common for tech and manufacturing companies, he says. Microsoft Tech Licenses Built Its Business Like all successful technology innovators, Microsoft has much experience — good and bad — with developing products and licensing technology. The company’s first hits were the MS-DOS and Window operating systems, both of which were licensed so extensively that Microsoft endured years of antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. and Europe. There have been notable failures, too. Microsoft intellectual property was used to develop the firm’s Zune digital music hardware. Microsoft also licensed Zune technology. Neither approach could save the entertainment player, which was discontinued last fall. Webb says developing products and licensing technology each have advantages and disadvantages. Licensing intellectual property typically brings modest, low-risk and ongoing revenue. A disadvantage of licensing is that it can put the licensee in the background when the technology succeeds in someone else’s product. Development costs more compared with licensing and puts any failure in a company’s lap. But the potential revenue upside is far larger, and the company is tied visibly to market success. While Webb says she has not had any contact with Microsoft regarding wearables, she feels the company is not likely to focus its related intellectual property solely or even primarily on consumer goods like fitness trackers. She said the most immediate market is for business-to-business applications (as was the case for MS-DOS), and what she calls “B-to-D” — business-to-doctor. Health-monitoring and diagnostic roles for wearables are growing today, and they should continue to expand as medical wearables become small, inexpensive and sophisticated, Webb said. But rival Apple is making an aggressive bid to invade health care with mobile devices, including the iWatch, and HealthKit, the company’s software platform for health-related applications. According to Black Book Market Research, almost 70% of physicians using medical apps do so on iPhones . That is a size-14 foot in the door for Apple. Webb says the promise of significant new revenue and the need to keep Apple at bay are likely to persuade Nadella to sift Microsoft’s patent portfolio for related innovations.
Best And Worst Q1’16: All Cap Growth ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings
The All Cap Growth style ranks seventh out of the twelve fund styles as detailed in our Q1’16 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the All Cap Growth style ranked sixth. It gets our Neutral rating, which is based on aggregation of ratings of 17 ETFs and 568 mutual funds in the All Cap Growth style. See a recap of our Q4’15 Style Ratings here. Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst-rated ETFs and mutual funds in the style. Not all All Cap Growth style ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 20 to 2206). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the All Cap Growth style should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Five ETFs are excluded from Figure 1 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Catalyst/Lyons Hedged Premium Return Fund (MUTF: CLPFX ) is excluded from Figure 2 because its total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. iShares Core US Growth ETF (NYSEARCA: IUSG ) is the top-rated All Cap Growth ETF and JPMorgan Intrepid Growth Fund (MUTF: JGISX ) is the top-rated All Cap Growth mutual fund. IUSG earns an Attractive rating and JGISX earns a Very Attractive rating. Calamos Focus Growth ETF (NASDAQ: CFGE ) is the worst-rated All Cap Growth ETF and Sparrow Growth Fund (MUTF: SGFFX ) is the worst-rated All Cap Growth mutual fund. CFGE earns a Neutral rating and SGFFX earns a Very Dangerous rating. Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ: GILD ) is one of our favorite stocks held by JGISX and earns a Very Attractive rating. Gilead is also one of only seven S&P 500 stocks to rise 10% or more in 2008 . Over the past 10 years, Gilead has grown after-tax profits ( NOPAT ) by 43% compounded annually. The company has consistently earned a double-digit return on invested capital ( ROIC ) and currently earns a top-quintile ROIC of 80%. Despite the impressive growth in profits and profitability throughout its history, GILD is currently undervalued. At its current price of $90/share, Gilead has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.7. This ratio means that the market expects Gilead’s NOPAT to permanently decline by 30% from current levels. If Gilead can grow NOPAT by just 13% compounded annually for the next five years , the stock is worth $170/share – an 88% upside. Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by ITCBX and earns a Dangerous rating. Splunk was placed in the Danger Zone in July 2015 . Throughout its history, Splunk has failed to convert robust revenue growth into real profits. In fact, since 2013, Splunk’s NOPAT has fallen from -$20 million to -$260 million over the last twelve months. Making matters worse, Splunk’s NOPAT margin has fallen from -10% to -44% over the same time frame, and the company currently earns a bottom-quintile -25% ROIC. Despite these issues, investors have driven SPLK to an astronomical valuation. To justify its current price of $49/share, Splunk must immediately achieve NOPAT margins of 4% and grow revenue by 30% compounded annually for 19 years. In this scenario, Splunk would be generating just over $69 billion in revenue in 19 years, which would be equal to Comcast’s (NASDAQ: CMCSA ) 2014 revenue. The future cash flow expectations embedded in the current stock price are dangerously high. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all All Cap Growth ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst Funds Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Funds Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.