>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers
  • Gapping up:
    • APLS +30.4%, URBN +7.1%, DWAC +4.7%, FIHL +4.6%, HRL +2.2%, TOL +2%, SSL +1.4%, GSK +1.1%, DY +0.9%, FMC +0.8%, UPS +0.7%, PBR +0.7%, QCOM +0.6%, CRM +0.6%
  • Gapping down:
    • BBWI -8.3%, LZB -1.3%, G -1.1%, FAF -0.9%, DINO -0.9%, SCU -0.8%

WatchPro : Patek Philippe store sued for $500,000 after customer claims



From: Laurent Chekroun (MAKOR CAPITAL MARKET) At: 08/23/23 12:15:46 UTC+2:00
Subject: WatchPro : A lawsuit has been filed in San Francisco against one of the longest-
A lawsuit has been filed in San Francisco against one of the longest-serving family jewellers in the United States after a customer, who alleges he was told he could climb a waiting list for a highly desirable Patek Philippe Nautilus by building up a purchasing history, was unable to buy it.
Californian newspapers report that Ali Rezaei, who wanted to buy a $109,000 gold Patek Philippe watch (Ref. 5980/1R-001) from Shreve & Co., had been told he would secure the timepiece as long as he built up a purchasing history of other, more attainable, watches and jewellery.
The lawsuit, registered with the San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that Mr Rezaei was told by Shreve & Co. that he could secure the promised watch if he could build a relationship and purchasing profile with the retailer.

What he was not told, he alleges, is that Shreve & Co. kept dangling the carrot of the gold Nautilus if he continued spending, even though the jeweller had been informed by Patek Philippe that it was going to lose its agency as part of a programme to cut 30% of its worldwide doors.
Mr Rezaei’s filing says he followed the advice, buying a different gold Patek Philippe watch from Shreve, for $71,000.
He then reportedly bought a women’s Patek Philippe, encrusted with diamonds, for $50,000 and a second men’s piece for $47,000.
Following the sort of advice that is widely circulating on social media, he even bought a $53,000 gold and diamond necklace in March last year, the sort of purchase that deliver the highest profit margins to a jeweller.
Mr Rezaei expected to be able to buy a Patek Philippe 5980_1R-001 after building up a purchasing history with Shreve & Co.
Mr Rezaei accuses Shreve of falsely promising that this sort of purchasing would open the door to him buying the Patek Philippe Nautilus of his dreams.
His lawsuit says he spent over $220,000 building up his profile with the understanding, encouraged by Shreve & Co., that he would secure the golden Nautilus.
The case is complicated by the fact that Shreve & Co. is among the authorized dealers that have lost the agency of the watchmaker this year, so was ultimately unable to sell the watch to Mr Rezaei, even if it had wanted to.
According to documents filed with the San Francisco court, Shreve did not tell its sales associates or Mr Rezaei that it would be unable to sell Patek Phillipe.
Instead, Mr Rezaei alleges, Shreve strung him along to continue to reap additional sales revenue and deprived him of the watch he was promised.
His lawsuit accuses Shreve of fraud, false promise, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
He is seeking $500,000 in damages.
Patek Philippe has declined to comment on the case and Shreve & Co. has not responded to WatchPro questions.

WatchPro : A lawsuit has been filed in San Francisco against one of the longest-

A lawsuit has been filed in San Francisco against one of the longest-serving family jewellers in the United States after a customer, who alleges he was told he could climb a waiting list for a highly desirable Patek Philippe Nautilus by building up a purchasing history, was unable to buy it.
Californian newspapers report that Ali Rezaei, who wanted to buy a $109,000 gold Patek Philippe watch (Ref. 5980/1R-001) from Shreve & Co., had been told he would secure the timepiece as long as he built up a purchasing history of other, more attainable, watches and jewellery.
The lawsuit, registered with the San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that Mr Rezaei was told by Shreve & Co. that he could secure the promised watch if he could build a relationship and purchasing profile with the retailer.

What he was not told, he alleges, is that Shreve & Co. kept dangling the carrot of the gold Nautilus if he continued spending, even though the jeweller had been informed by Patek Philippe that it was going to lose its agency as part of a programme to cut 30% of its worldwide doors.
Mr Rezaei’s filing says he followed the advice, buying a different gold Patek Philippe watch from Shreve, for $71,000.
He then reportedly bought a women’s Patek Philippe, encrusted with diamonds, for $50,000 and a second men’s piece for $47,000.
Following the sort of advice that is widely circulating on social media, he even bought a $53,000 gold and diamond necklace in March last year, the sort of purchase that deliver the highest profit margins to a jeweller.
Mr Rezaei expected to be able to buy a Patek Philippe 5980_1R-001 after building up a purchasing history with Shreve & Co.
Mr Rezaei accuses Shreve of falsely promising that this sort of purchasing would open the door to him buying the Patek Philippe Nautilus of his dreams.
His lawsuit says he spent over $220,000 building up his profile with the understanding, encouraged by Shreve & Co., that he would secure the golden Nautilus.
The case is complicated by the fact that Shreve & Co. is among the authorized dealers that have lost the agency of the watchmaker this year, so was ultimately unable to sell the watch to Mr Rezaei, even if it had wanted to.
According to documents filed with the San Francisco court, Shreve did not tell its sales associates or Mr Rezaei that it would be unable to sell Patek Phillipe.
Instead, Mr Rezaei alleges, Shreve strung him along to continue to reap additional sales revenue and deprived him of the watch he was promised.
His lawsuit accuses Shreve of fraud, false promise, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
He is seeking $500,000 in damages.
Patek Philippe has declined to comment on the case and Shreve & Co. has not responded to WatchPro questions.

TechCrunch : Microsoft is bringing Python to Excel

Microsoft is bringing Python to Excel
Image Credits: Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto / Getty Images
Microsoft today announced the public preview of Python in Excel, which will allow advanced spreadsheet users to combine scripts in the popular Python language and their usual Excel formulas in the same workbook.
This feature will first roll out to Microsoft 365 Insiders as part of the Excel for Windows beta channel. Yet while the feature will first only be available in the desktop version of Excel, Microsoft notes that the Python calculations will run in the Microsoft Cloud. Python runs perfectly well on any modern PC, so I’m not sure why Microsoft went the cloud route here.
“Now you can do advanced data analysis in the familiar Excel environment by accessing Python directly from the Excel ribbon,” Stefan Kinnestrand, the GM for Modern Work at Microsoft, explains. “No set up or installation is required. Using Excel’s built-in connectors and Power Query, you can easily bring external data into Python in Excel workflows.”

Image Credits: Microsoft

Microsoft partnered with data science platform Anaconda to bring this feature to life. The company is using the Anaconda Python distribution — running in Azure — to bring the most popular Python libraries to Excel, including the likes of Matplotlib and seaborn for data visualization.
To try this out, you’ll have to join the Microsoft 365 Insider Program and opt for the beta channel to get the latest Excel builds. From there, it’s just a question of selecting “insert Python” in the Formulas ribbon to get started.
It’s worth noting that there have long been libraries that allowed Python users to work with Excel files, as well as (paid) Excel add-ons like PyXLL that bring Python’s functionality to Microsoft’s spreadsheets, too.

FT : Russia fires ‘General Armageddon’ amid Wagner crackdown

Russia fires ‘General Armageddon’ amid Wagner crackdown
Sergei Surovikin dismissed as head of military’s aerospace forces

Russia’s army has dismissed Sergei Surovikin, a prominent general, as head of its aerospace forces amid a crackdown on potential Wagner sympathisers following the paramilitary group’s failed mutiny in June.

State newswire RIA Novosti cited an “informed source” on Wednesday saying Surovikin had been “relieved of his post” and replaced by Viktor Afzalov, the aerospace forces’ chief of staff.

Known as “General Armageddon” for brutal bombardments under his command in Syria, Surovikin took over Russia’s invasion force last October after a series of embarrassing battlefield setbacks in Ukraine.

He was the most prominent figure among a number of senior military leaders who had good relations with Wagner’s leader Yevgeny Prigozhin, but he has not been seen in public since he was detained in late June.

Though Russia’s military has not explained Surovikin’s absence or said whether he remains deputy commander of its invasion forces in Ukraine, the general’s detention came in the midst of President Vladimir Putin’s post-mutiny crackdown at the top of the security services.

Hardliners who have been known to sympathise with Wagner and criticise the army’s leadership — in particular, defence minister Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, chief of the general staff — have been sacked or detained after giving dire assessments of the situation at the front.

Prigozhin’s rivals, meanwhile, have appeared more frequently in public at high-level events, suggesting they continue to enjoy Putin’s patronage. Last week, Putin visited the army headquarters in Rostov for the first time since Wagner briefly seized it during the mutiny, and was given a guided tour by Gerasimov.

Under Surovikin’s command, Russia switched to defensive tactics aimed at consolidating its territorial conquests while launching devastating air strikes on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.

He lost his position to Gerasimov following an internal power struggle in January, but remained popular among hardliners who chafed at Shoigu and Gerasimov’s poor management while continuing to serve as Wagner’s effective handler.

In his last public appearance, a video released in the middle of the night as Prigozhin’s 24-hour mutiny began, a visibly distressed Surovikin cradled a machine gun as he urged Wagner to stand down.

Andrei Kartapolov, an MP and former deputy defence minister, said in July that Surovikin was “resting” and “not available right now”, without elaborating.

But after the Kremlin struck an 11th-hour deal to stop Wagner’s march on Moscow, Prigozhin appeared to have at least partially reintegrated himself into the Russian security establishment — even as generals who shared many of his gripes with the army’s leadership fell out of favour.

The Wagner leader attended a roundtable with Putin at the Kremlin in July before the group departed for exile in Belarus, whose leader, President Alexander Lukashenko, brokered the deal to end the mutiny.

Prigozhin then appeared in a dimly lit video appearing to tell Wagner’s fighters that they had relocated to Belarus “for some time” before eventual redeployment in Africa, where the group has been hired as mercenaries in several countries.

On Monday, a Wagner-linked channel on social media app Telegram posted a video in which Prigozhin claimed he was in Africa on a mission to “make Russia even greater on all continents”.

Electrek : Tesla is paying $20,000 a year to be on Elon Musk’s X, and it’s not c

Tesla is paying $20,000 a year to be on Elon Musk’s X, and it’s not clear why

Tesla keeps creating new paying accounts on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) to the point that it is now likely paying around $20,000 per year to be on the social media platform.

It’s not clear what it is getting in return.

Public companies, like Tesla, have to disclose any “related transaction” that may have conflict of interest between its executives or board members and any other companies that they have interests in.

For example, Tesla often disclosed dealings with SpaceX over the shared use of Elon Musk’s plane or the latter’s purchase of Tesla parts.

Now Tesla is going to have more to disclose and possibly justify to its shareholders as it is starting to spend more money on X (formerly Twitter), which is under the ownership of its CEO, Elon Musk.

X has been having issues behind being profitable with advertising, and it has turned to subscription services.

Twitter Blue, now X Premium, is a $8 per month subscription service for X users. It “verifies” the user, gives them a blue badge, and gets them more visibility.

But X is also pushing a subscription for businesses called “Verified Organizations” with similar features:
It is quite expensive. X charges $1,000 a month for the main account and then $50 per month for every other “affiliated account.”

Tesla is paying for this service and Electrek has found 13 accounts affiliated to Tesla’s verified org account.

It means that Tesla is paying $1,650 per month – or roughly $20,000 per year – to be on X.

Where things are starting to look excessive is that Tesla appears to be launching several new accounts requiring an additional $50 per month payment for every aspect of its business since Musk took over Twitter and launched this new subscription service.

For example, Tesla launched a new “Tesla North America” account last month, a new “Tesla Europe” account in January, a new “Tesla AI” account in May, a new “Tesla Megapack” account in January, and new “Tesla Optimus” account also in January.

This strategy is unique to X as Tesla operates only a single official account on other social media platforms, like Instagram and Youtube.

The Tesla Optimus account has posted a single tweet since it was created in January:
Tesla has been paying $50 per month for this account which has been sitting useless for most of the time.

The automaker has also been paying “affiliate accounts” for executives like Franz von Holzhausen, Drew Baglino, and Tom Zhu, who all rarely use their accounts for anything other than repost Tesla’s own official posts.

Electrek’s Take
Update: Tesla fans seem to be missing the point here. They are focusing on the amount, which everyone agrees is meaningless for Tesla. It’s not the amount the problem, it is the decision-making being a slippery slope. Ironically, I explained it on X:

>>> Petrobras clarifies pieces of news in the media regarding Braksem (BAK) (13.

Petrobras clarifies pieces of news in the media regarding Braksem (BAK)
  • Petrobras, regarding the pieces of news published in the media, reaffirms that it is carrying out due diligence on Braskem, for the possible exercise of tag along or preemptive rights, in the event of the sale of the shares held by Novonor S.A. (Novonor) in the company, in accordance with the rules set out in the Shareholders' Agreement signed between Petrobras and Novonor.
  • It is worth noting that there has been no decision by the Executive Board or the Board of Directors in relation to the issue.
  • Petrobras emphasizes that decisions on investments and divestments are based on careful analysis and technical studies, in compliance with governance practices and applicable internal procedures.

WWD : How Growth in Celebrity Brands Is Affecting the Retail Industry

How Growth in Celebrity Brands Is Affecting the Retail Industry
Celebrity brands are gravitating to New York City for their pop-up stores but shifting to Los Angeles when it comes time to open a permanent location.

When Khloé Kardashian and Emma Grede launched their Good American brand in 2016, one of the first things they did a year later was plant their first pop-up store inside VFiles’ outpost in New York City.

Seven years later, the famous duo branched out with their first permanent Good American store, which opened in June at the Westfield Century City mall in Los Angeles.

And more stores are on the way. “We’re scaling quickly. There will be a lot more stores opening next year,” Grede, the company’s chief executive officer, said during the opening of the 3,000-square-foot space. Two more stores are scheduled to open later this year at Fashion Island in Newport Beach, California, and The Forum Shops at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

Good American followed the path that many celebrity brands have taken. A recent study by commercial real estate and investment management company JLL shows that celebrity brands tend to place their first pop-up store in New York but opt for Los Angeles when they establish their first brick-and-mortar outpost. In the last decade, the report said, celebrity-backed retail brands have opened more than 300,000 square feet of retail space.

“When it comes to where pop-ups decide to open, New York has been a breeding ground for this retail concept,” said Ebere Anokute, the report’s author and a research manager in retail for JLL, also known as Jones Lang LaSalle.

The researcher noted that New York has more foot traffic than most urban areas, which is a plus for attracting customers, and is populated with a number of prime retail streets. “There are a lot of developers and landlords in New York that are really devoted to testing out new retail concepts, whether you look at the shops at Hudson Yards and their entire Floor of Discovery or you look at what has been done on Bleecker Street. It’s a breeding ground for digital-native concepts to test out opening physical stores.”

SoHo is probably one of the most popular areas for pop-ups, he noted, and Brooklyn’s Williamsburg is emerging as a new hot pop-up store spot because of lower retail rents and younger customers living in the hip neighborhood.

Pop-up stores are cheaper to set up than permanent units, help brand owners test consumer response to their products and provide experiential marketing opportunities.

When it is time to leap into permanent retail, celebrity brands often opt for Los Angeles, where neighborhood outdoor and indoor malls attract shoppers from various locations and rents are cheaper than in New York. “The focus on L.A. has a lot to do with a better deal in rents, and the preponderance of people in the entertainment industry living there who can promote their brand,” Anokute said.

Skims, cofounded by Kim Kardashian, is opening its first brick-and-mortar location next year on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. Other celebrity brands that opened their first stores in Los Angeles include Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop, Tyler, the Creator’s Golf Wang, and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen’s The Row.


The rise of celebrity brand stores is becoming the silver lining for malls and retail streets that have been struggling to fill vacant storefronts. Fabletics, the athleisure brand cofounded 10 years ago by actor Kate Hudson, now has 13 of its 95 stores in Los Angeles-area malls.

These kinds of retail stores are coveted by shopping malls. Late last year, mall owner Simon Property Group teamed with Leap, a company that brings online brands into the brick-and-mortar retail world, to help populate their nearly 100 malls. Simon and Leap began by bringing four stores — True Classic Tees, ThirdLove, Sugarfina and Goodlife — to the Del Amo Mall in Los Angeles and Town Center in Boca Raton, Florida.

In the JLL report, researchers found that when it comes to starting a brand, most celebrities gravitate toward the beauty category, which can turn a profit quickly. Kylie Jenner had a lucrative return on investment when she started Kylie Cosmetics in 2015. Five years later, she reached a deal to sell a 51 percent stake in her company for $1.2 billion to legacy brand Coty. And Rihanna launched her Fenty Beauty brand, with a 40-shade foundation range, in 2017. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton backs the brand, which Forbes now values at $1.4 billion.

Since 2017, 53 percent of celebrity brands have been in beauty while 41 percent have been in apparel. “I think a lot of these brands end up in beauty because there is a lower barrier to entry,” Anokute of JLL said. “When it comes to apparel and other categories, you have to focus on having a really wide size range, returns and people coming in to feel the clothes.”

Opening stores is also becoming a cheaper way to attract customers. Celebrity brands, which emerged in 2017 and took off during the pandemic in 2020, are discovering that retail might be a more economical way of acquiring customers. The JLL report noted that the average cost to acquire an online customer in 2023 was about $70 compared with $58 in 2021 and $25 in 2018.

“Right now, we’re seeing that celebrity brands are very bullish about opening physical stores,” Anokute said. “They’ve seen that malls are a great place to market to consumers. I also see a bit of symbiosis going on between mall operators and these digital brands to resolve vacancies.”