FT : Meta and Alphabet lose dominance over US digital ads market

Meta and Alphabet lose dominance over US digital ads market
Long-held duopoly that rules the $300bn market is hit by growing competition from Amazon, Microsoft and Apple

Meta and Alphabet have lost their dominance over the digital advertising market they have ruled for years, as the duopoly is hit by fast-growing competition from rivals Amazon, TikTok, Microsoft and Apple.

The share of US ad revenues held by Facebook’s parent Meta and Google owner Alphabet is projected to fall by 2.5 percentage points to 48.4 per cent this year, the first time the two groups will not hold a majority share of the market since 2014, according to research group Insider Intelligence.

This will mark the fifth consecutive annual decline for the duopoly, whose share of the market has fallen from a peak of 54.7 per cent in 2017 and is forecast to decline to 43.9 per cent by 2024. Worldwide, Meta and Alphabet’s share declined 1 percentage point to 49.5 per cent this year.

Jerry Dischler, head of ads at Google, told the Financial Times that fierce rivalry from new entrants reflects an “extremely dynamic ad market”.

Regulators in the US and Europe have added antitrust scrutiny such as pursuing Google for allegedly promoting its products over rivals. In December, Facebook owner Meta was served with a complaint from the EU’s watchdogs over concerns that the social network’s classified advert service is unfair to rivals.

Tech groups are fighting harder than ever for a share of the $300bn digital ads market, even as companies worldwide are cutting their ad budgets in response to rising interest rates and high inflation.

Amazon and Apple have expanded their advertising teams. In July, Netflix announced it would partner with Microsoft to build an advertisement-supported tier of its streaming service.

Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has blamed recent revenue falls on Apple’s privacy changes that make it harder to track users and target advertising, as well as the growing popularity of viral videos app TikTok, owned by Chinese parent ByteDance.

“Four years ago, you wouldn’t be talking about either [TikTok or Amazon] in advertising,” said Dischler. “So it’s really telling that more and more people are acknowledging that advertising is a great and scalable business model.”


Amazon’s foray into the digital ads world has played a big part in hitting Meta and Google’s dominance. After years of toying in the market, it ramped efforts up in 2015 and has since seen ad revenues skyrocket from less than $1bn to an estimated $38bn this year.

“Before I joined, I didn’t even know what Amazon Ads was,” said an Amazon executive who says they now run “a massive team — and I didn’t know this existed before the recruiter called”.

Paul Prior, chief operating officer of Undertone, a digital advertising company, said retail giants led by Amazon woke up to the realisation that their extensive data on customers could be the basis for a massive advertising business with higher margins than the sale of goods online.

But Amazon then went a step further, expanding its on-site ads business beyond its own shopping site. “Across the wider digital universe, they use that data set to empower brands and the advertisers to buy better, to spend more effectively and drive return on ad-spend,” said Prior.

Apple has also emerged as a new threat. Its ad revenues have grown from under $2.2bn in 2018 to more than $7bn this year. Although that is just 1.2 per cent of the global market, it is already more than Snapchat and Pinterest combined, and some estimates suggest Apple could reach $30bn of ad revenue by 2026.

In September, the FT revealed that the iPhone maker plans to nearly double the workforce in its fast-growing digital advertising business. Its job ads describe ambitions of “redefining advertising” for a “privacy-centric” world.

Zuckerberg has repeatedly hit out at Apple’s “conflict of interest”, criticising it of charging “monopoly rents” and stifling innovation. Apple’s privacy rules have made it difficult for Meta to tailor ads to people, contributing to its shares falling by about two-thirds over the past 15 months.

Google does not appear to have seen as much impact from Apple’s privacy changes, as it can tailor ads directly to users typing in search terms — giving it valuable “user intent” data that Meta struggles to attain.

But Apple already has its own Google Maps rival, a search function on the iPhone, and it is building a nascent ads business — which analysts say could take on Google in future.

“Apple has a really strong brand that consumers trust and they have the devices that are used by the cream of the consumer crop,” said Josh Koenig, chief strategy officer at Pantheon, a digital marketing platform. “If they can figure out how to turn that into a real valuable network for advertisers, they’ll be able to charge a premium.”

Insider Intelligence has forecast that Google and Meta’s US ad growth in 2023 will be just 3 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively, while at least eight of its rivals are to experience double-digit gains.

It estimates that Amazon’s ads business will rise by 19 per cent, Apple 26 per cent, Spotify 30 per cent, TikTok 36 per cent and Walmart 42 per cent. However, many of these groups’ market shares are currently small.

Dischler said Google was working hard on expanding its ads business in both ecommerce — where it is partnering with retailers — as well as in privacy-first advertising, where he argues Google can play a bigger role than Apple.

“I very much don’t see it as a zero-sum game,” said Dischler. “If Uber has an ad network — billboards on cars that previously didn’t have billboards, and is providing advertising opportunities when you’re getting groceries or food through restaurants — then they’re making the pie bigger.”

WSJ : Microsoft Responds to FTC Suit Over Activision Deal

Microsoft Responds to FTC Suit Over Activision Deal
Software giant files documents opposing claims that transaction would harm competition in videogame industry

Microsoft Corp. MSFT -2.55% has filed a rebuttal to a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit aimed at blocking the software giant’s $75 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard Inc., ATVI -0.25% saying the deal will not hurt competition in the videogaming industry.

The software giant said in its defense of the deal that it is not the videogame industry’s top console company or software developer and its acquisition is aimed at becoming more competitive through its Xbox videogaming unit.

“Xbox wants to grow its presence in mobile gaming, and three quarters of Activision’s gamers and more than a third of its revenues come from mobile offerings,” Microsoft said in its response to the FTC lawsuit. “Xbox also believes it is good business to make Activision’s limited portfolio of popular games more accessible to consumers, by putting them on more platforms and making them more affordable.”

Microsoft had signaled it would challenge the antitrust regulator’s case after arguing for months the transaction wouldn’t harm competition in the videogame industry. It offered concessions to the FTC before the lawsuit was filed in a failed attempt to head off a legal battle.

In its suit, the FTC alleged that the acquisition would be illegal because it would give Microsoft the ability to control how consumers access Activision’s games beyond the Redmond, Wash., company’s own Xbox consoles and subscription services. Microsoft could raise prices or degrade Activision’s content for people who don’t use its hardware to access the developer’s games, or even cut off access to the games, the FTC said.

Microsoft has said it wouldn’t engage in such actions and that it needs Activision’s hit franchises such as “Call of Duty” and “Candy Crush” because it trails its rivals in console sales and has a limited presence in mobile-game development. The company, which values the deal at $68.7 billion after adjusting for Activision’s net cash, has also said it expects the industry to get more competitive with the rise of cloud gaming.

The FTC said Thursday that it will stand by its case.

“This $69 billion acquisition would give Microsoft the means to harm competition in multiple fast-growing gaming markets,” said John Newman, deputy director of the FTC’s bureau of competition in a statement. “We are confident in our case and look forward to presenting it at trial.”

A few days before the FTC sued Microsoft, the company offered to keep “Call of Duty” games accessible to rivals such as PlayStation maker Sony Group Corp. through a legally binding consent decree, augmenting a pledge it had made months earlier to keep them accessible for at least 10 years.

“The acquisition of a single game by the third-place console manufacturer cannot upend a highly competitive industry,” Microsoft said in its response. “That is particularly so when the manufacturer has made clear it will not withhold the game.”

European Union and U.K. regulators are also probing the deal, which Microsoft announced nearly a year ago. It has gained approval in some markets, such as Brazil and Saudi Arabia.

On Wednesday, the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority said it received an overwhelming majority of emails from the public in favor of the transaction after requesting people’s input between Oct. 14 and Oct. 28. The antitrust watchdog said about three quarters of 2,100 responses it received were in support of the transaction and about one quarter were opposed.

Microsoft’s battle with U.S. regulators is scheduled to take place in the FTC’s administrative court in August, unless a settlement is reached before then. The company has said it would prefer an amicable resolution.

“Even with confidence in our case, we remain committed to creative solutions with regulators that will protect competition, consumers and workers in the tech sector,” Microsoft President Brad Smith said.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick defended the deal in a separate statement. “There is no sensible, legitimate reason for our transaction to be prevented from closing,” he said Thursday.

The company could offer the FTC commitments on top of its existing “Call of Duty” offer to avoid litigation, legal experts say. Still, they add, such a move might not sway the government because it would have to invest in resources to enforce them. Further, they say the FTC might be concerned that concessions deemed sensible today might not be valid in the future.

The agency faces hurdles in its case, legal experts say, because the deal is for a “vertical merger,” meaning that Microsoft wants to buy a company in its supply chain as opposed to a direct competitor. Legal experts say the FTC could argue that the transaction would indirectly put consumers at risk, such as by enabling the misuse of sensitive competitor information by the combined enterprise. With such information, the new entity could prevent upstarts in videogame distribution from succeeding, they say, leaving consumers with fewer choices.

The FTC sued even though Microsoft, through Mr. Smith, has been building relationships in the capital for decades. He had helped cultivate an image of the software giant as one of the friendly technology leaders after serving as the company’s legal adviser through bitter antitrust disputes with regulators worldwide in the 1990s.

FT : I tried to buy a Rolex and fell into a grey market for luxe watches

I tried to buy a Rolex and fell into a grey market for luxe watches
A Porsche-driving student. Wads of cash in lunch bags. And buckets of brand-new timepieces

In April, I decided to buy my wife a Rolex. Her 33rd birthday was approaching, and I needed a gift befitting a woman who in the past two years had not only changed career, but given birth in a pandemic-ravaged hospital and raised a child during violent protests near our home in Los Angeles. For months, it felt like the Rolex Oyster Perpetual had been following us. Its handsome blue face stared out from our favourite glossy magazines. Television commercials for the same model interrupted the Australian Open. And on Instagram, #perpetual was unavoidable. On the day we left the city for a new life in the suburbs, the Oyster Perpetual, a stainless steel miracle of horology, watched us drive past from a freeway billboard.

It seemed like Rolex had spent millions marketing this $5,800 watch directly to us. So I popped down to my nearest authorised dealer to pick one up.

At Ben Bridge Jeweler in a mall in Thousand Oaks, California, I found only empty cabinets and an apologetic salesperson. They didn’t have any Oyster Perpetuals, he said with a shrug. They didn’t have any Rolex watches at all. The store looked like a gang of ram raiders had just left and, when I found the same thing at other boutiques, something didn’t feel right. I scrolled through Rolex’s Instagram account and found the comments section festering in conspiracy. “Rolex produces a million watches a year,” wrote one follower. “Then grey market dealers buy them all up and sell them at a premium.” What was this grey market, I wondered. And could I buy my wife a watch there before her birthday in May?

The inner workings of the Rolex company are cloaked in mystery, much like the complicated movements of its watches, which are invisible to the wearer. Rolex timepieces generate more than $8.6bn in sales annually, but the brand belongs to the Wilsdorf Foundation, which funnels its profits to worthy causes and the arts. The foundation is named after Hans Wilsdorf, an orphan who founded Rolex in 1905 and established the foundation 40 years later. For decades the Rolex watch has remained the ultimate status symbol — one in plentiful supply. In the 1960s Fidel Castro wore two at once. Those days are over.

“The scarcity of our products is not a strategy on our part,” Rolex says. “The reality is that our current production can simply not meet existing demand, at least not without reducing the quality of our watches — something we refuse to do . . . Rolex watches are sold exclusively by official retailers, and they independently manage the allocation of their watches to their customers.” Yet, if production numbers estimated by Morgan Stanley are correct, Rolex made an estimated 1.05 million watches in 2021. Where were they?

“I don’t think it’s a supply chain issue,” says Eric Wind, a vintage watch dealer and widely respected Rolex authority. He says the current demand for the Swiss company’s watches is unprecedented. “There are watches that are selling for 10 times retail on the secondary market . . . That’s part of why it’s so hard for you to get that watch for your wife,” he tells me. “Because if the dealer can get a few thousand dollars in cash on the side, versus you walking in willing to pay retail . . . some will be motivated to take the cash.” This temptation has increased as the market value of Rolex watches ballooned.

Back in 2015, I purchased my own Rolex, a diver’s model called a Submariner, to commemorate a work-related windfall. I visited a vintage watch store in West Hollywood called Wanna Buy a Watch, where I nervously counted $5,500 in cash on to the counter. It was, amusingly, the exact amount of money I had to my name when I arrived in America from England, five years earlier. The watch weighed heavily on my wrist and, as a security guard held open the door, he said: “Welcome to the club.” I felt about 8ft tall.

By the time I got around to insuring the watch in 2017, estimators valued it at $6,295. By 2021, Submariners were changing hands for $15,000. And by the time I began shopping for a watch for my wife Natalie, I knew I would be giving her something that would quietly appreciate in value with every tick. On internet watch forums, I read a lot about dealers using Rolex watches to offer customers quid pro quo deals. Spend a few hundred thousand dollars on jewellery and, only then, would you be offered a coveted Rolex. “It’s not technically illegal,” says Ariel Adams, a lawyer who publishes the watch review site ablogtowatch.com. But it’s infuriating watch-buyers around the world.

Brian DeSantos, a 41-year-old creative director in Los Angeles, recounted on Reddit a similar experience at his local Rolex store. The dealer “just straight up told me: ‘Steel sport watches are reward watches . . . there’s no way you’ll ever be able to buy one just by shopping for one.’” DeSantos was left fuming. “I’m supposed to be able to access this. I’m rich,” he tells me on the telephone. “I’m willing to give you an insane amount of money for this silly thing you offer. Why won’t you let me?”

I wondered if my local Rolex dealer was secretly sitting on a cache of watches, somewhere out back, behind the empty cabinets. Was he waiting for a wealthy individual to arrive jangling the keys to his Ferrari? Then, I found a lawsuit bubbling in the Midwest that seemed to offer an explanation. In Cook County, Illinois, nicknamed “Crook County” because it’s so mired in federal corruption, three former salespeople at a Rolex authorised dealer had blown the whistle on what they alleged was a racketeering scheme involving timepieces. Legal documents offered a glimpse into how Rolex watches and other luxury watch brands might be trafficked from authorised dealers on to the grey market.

Olga Nelson had a feeling there was something fishy going on at the Old Orchard branch of CD Peacock, a chain jewellery store inside a Westfield mall in Skokie, 13 miles north-west of Chicago. Nelson had worked for two years as a custom designer, manager and Rolex salesperson for CD Peacock, believed to be the oldest registered business still operating in Illinois. (When CD Peacock attended the World’s Fair in Chicago in 1893, it had been selling jewellery for 56 years.) Just before the holiday sales rush in 2018, the store hired a new sales assistant, a Chinese student named Yingxue “Ying” Duan.

“She was hired with virtually no experience,” Nelson tells me over Zoom. “I was told that I was to manage her.” Small and slender, Duan arrived each day behind the wheel of a Porsche and wafted around the “Rolex area” of the store, a glass sanctuary decorated in the brand’s signature green. Like all new employees, Duan was taught that the store’s agreement with Rolex states that it must only sell its watches in-person to customers, never to third-parties, and that the salesperson must carefully record the buyer’s ID on its warranty cards.

Nelson saw Duan selling Rolex watches to strange people who breezed into the store, including her boyfriend, according to a civil complaint filed in March 2022. “We witnessed him come in with a lunch bag,” Nelson tells me. They took various high-ticket Rolex watches into a back office, Nelson says in the complaint, and when she peered through the window she saw them counting piles of cash. Almost overnight, Rolex watches started flying out of the store, and Duan became its number one Rolex salesperson. “It’s unheard of for somebody [so new to sales] to pull the kind of numbers that she started pulling,” Nelson says. Suzana Krajisnik, a sales assistant who had been hired at the same time as Duan, also reported her colleague’s behaviour to her bosses. Duan, who included “leadership” and “management” on her list of skills, didn’t mix well with staff.

Soon, Duan started holding closed-door meetings with the store’s senior management, who according to the lawsuit announced a jaw-dropping, one-time sales target of $10mn to the sales team. After that, the suit alleges Duan started buying watches using her own credit card, breaking the rules. By now, almost all Rolex stock was sold through Duan, who spent her breaks glued to her phone. Nelson says she surreptitiously observed Duan selling watches directly to Asia’s grey market, on Facebook. “I found myself in a very tough predicament,” Nelson says. “I could make a lot of money [because] I get bonuses off the team and Ying if the store does well . . . I am a single parent. I need every dime I make to take care of my kids.”

Two civil complaints filed in 2021 and 2022 opened up the case of this alleged grey-market scheme and allowed everyone to peek at the machinations. According to allegations in Krajisnik’s 2021 complaint, Duan made special orders to Rolex and received watches with a retail value of about $40,000 each. She then purchased the watches using her own credit card and supplied Rolex with a fake buyer’s name, “Phoebe W”. Finally, she hawked the watches online to foreign buyers at a massive mark-up. (Duan did not respond to interview requests.)

I found myself in a very tough predicament. I could make a lot of money . . . I am a single parent. I need every dime I make

Olga Nelson, former Rolex salesperson
“I work at an authorised Rolex dealer,” Duan told one customer, in social media messages saved by Nelson and included in the latest legal complaint, filed in March 2022. “Whatever you are doing in Taiwan, keep it low, and don’t make it difficult.” When Nelson scrolled through Duan’s Facebook account, she saved photographs of Duan’s contacts posing with bricks of cash while wearing solid gold Rolex watches. When I saw the images that Nelson submitted as exhibits in support of the complaint, I began to understand one possible reason it was so hard to find a watch for my wife. But who were these mystery buyers, and what was the source of their money?

“This crypto thing has definitely got something to do with it,” says Rob Corder, who has reported on Rolex for a decade for the magazine WatchPro. When the newly rich want a brand-new Rolex, they want it now. That puts authorised dealers and their staff in a tricky situation, Corder explains, because the moment a watch leaves the store in the hands of a third-party “flipper”, its value triples or quadruples. “Flippers are constantly grooming salespeople with promises of splitting the profit of over-retail deals,” Corder explains on his blog, adding that Rolex takes a tough line on any dealer who breaks the rules.

But that requires getting caught. “There’s a lot of grey market activity . . . in New York,” says Wind, the Rolex expert. “I’ve seen dealers with, literally, buckets full of brand-new [Rolexes] . . . all in plastic Ziploc bags.” In my quest for my wife’s birthday present, I found several online dealers offering the Oyster Perpetual for $9,250, 60 per cent more than its retail value and way out of my budget. (There’s an unwritten rule that one’s watch should not exceed the value of one’s car, and my wife and I drive a modest second-hand BMW.)

It was February 2019, back in “Crook County”, and CD Peacock’s Rolex manager, Giuseppe “Joe” Di Lorenzo, had also noticed the store’s Rolex sales figures skyrocketing. Di Lorenzo, a heavy-set Italian-American with a “Dese, dem, dose” Chicago accent and a streak of grey in his hair, says in the March complaint that he confronted the store’s director, Dyol Hill. He said he had found forged signatures on credit card receipts. Di Lorenzo alleges that in February or March 2019, Hill offered him a cut of Duan’s commissions to keep quiet. When he refused, Di Lorenzo alleges that Hill threatened him, saying: “[I will] not let no one derail my retirement plans.”

By now, things were out of control. Duan would, according to the first legal complaint, “intentionally fail to remove the Rolex product’s protective sticker so it could be resold as ‘brand-new’”. Di Lorenzo claims that instead of assigning Rolex warranty cards to genuine customers, Duan made them out to fake names, like basketball star LeBron James. Di Lorenzo felt conflicted. He was his family’s breadwinner and his wife was pregnant. He needed his job and decided to stick it out.

Meanwhile, Duan was listing Rolex watches for sale on various social media pages, including Facebook, Instagram and WeChat, according to the complaints. Sales data quoted in the first lawsuit filed by Krajisnik shows that, between March and April 2019, Duan purchased eight Rolex watches, worth between $14,050 and $49,670, using her own credit card and, at times, with “quantities of cash brought to [CD Peacock] in literal sacks of money by her friends and buyers.” Nelson says she saw Duan shipping empty Rolex boxes out of state to avoid paying sales taxes, and that some of the watches ended up abroad. It was no wonder there were few left for rubes like me who walked in off the street.

Soon, other CD Peacock sales people were denied access to Rolex products and had their work hours cut, according to the March complaint. This caused a mutiny. Screaming matches broke out and Duan was often seen sobbing out back. Nelson was startled. If the store lost its licence to sell Rolex products, she would probably lose her job and along with it her family’s health insurance. “It was extremely stressful,” Nelson says, tears forming in her eyes. She considered telling the store’s highly respected owner, Seymour Holtzman, or the CEO, Robert Baumgardner.

Then, Nelson says she discovered a four-page handwritten document detailing a meeting involving Baumgardner, Duan, Hill and a fourth investor plotting to purchase CD Peacock. According to the document submitted as an exhibit in the latest legal complaint, Duan would become a partner with 51 per cent of a shareholder equity worth nearly $18mn — a staggering amount for a student. Rumours swirled among the store’s staff that she was connected to the Chinese president, though there is no evidence of it. Then, in June 2019, according to the court filing, Nelson took a deep breath and decided to tell CD Peacock’s head accountant about Duan’s scheme. Nelson was fired.

In December 2019, Krajisnik was fired, too. Around that time, in a closed-door meeting, Di Lorenzo told a superior he was “worried that something illegal was going on” relating to Duan. But her activity continued, unabated, into January 2020. That was when they fired Di Lorenzo, not long after his wife had given birth.

In the March complaint, it is alleged that CD Peacock claimed that Di Lorenzo had engaged in possible fraudulent behaviour by selling a Rolex to a “Serbian truck driver” with a soon-to-expire driver’s licence. In a letter sent to Nelson about her insubordination, made public in the court filing, Dyol Hill complained that Nelson had suggested he was “in bed” with Duan. According to the lawsuit, CD Peacock complained this had sexual connotations. (Nelson says she was using the colloquial term for collusion.) Meanwhile, Krajisnik claimed that CD Peacock fired her for having “lagging sales numbers”.

In February 2021, Krajisnik filed the first lawsuit against CD Peacock’s owner, Holtzman, and four employees, alleging they terminated her employment in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Duan. Jane McFetridge, counsel for CD Peacock, called the complaint “a corporate shakedown” in an interview with WatchPro, adding that Krajisnik’s demands were “divorced from reality”. Then, in April, Krajisnik voluntarily dismissed the case from federal court. On March 23 2022, she teamed up with Nelson and Di Lorenzo to file the second, joint complaint in a state court, alleging that CD Peacock had violated the Illinois Whistleblower Act by firing them.

CD Peacock has called this “a classic example of forum shopping”, in which litigants seek a court that favours their case. In a motion to dismiss the case, the jeweller argued that the former staff members have not proved that they were “asked to engage in an unlawful activity but then refused”. It added that the lawsuit was designed to “harass” the jeweller and to “damage their business relationships”. The lawsuit alleges that CD Peacock has conducted “racketeering activity”, an accusation that echoed around the watch-collecting universe.

In an email to the Financial Times, a spokesperson for CD Peacock describes Nelson, Di Lorenzo and Krajisnik as “three former disgruntled employees who were terminated for cause”. The jeweller “categorically denies the allegations” and adds: “CD Peacock would never engage in behaviour of this nature as it would risk relationships and a business model it has worked years to establish and foster.” Yet the Old Orchard mall branch is no longer described on CD Peacock’s website as an “authorised Rolex dealer”. Rolex would not comment on this matter, but pointed to its official online store locator, where the Old Orchard mall branch is not listed either, unlike CD Peacock’s two other Chicago-area stores.

Despite a failed attempt by CD Peacock to silence the plaintiffs by seeking sanctions from a judge, the lawsuit is slowly winding its way through the courts. CD Peacock has claimed that the information in the complaint breaches its confidentiality agreements, and that by litigating, the former employees have “thumbed their noses at the court”. Meanwhile, lawyers who attempted to serve papers to Duan believe she has fled the country.

“Rolex does not comment on any legal proceedings,” the watchmaker says. “However, please know that we obviously disapprove of and oppose any illegal and dishonest business practices.” There is no suggestion that Rolex was involved in the alleged scheme, but it has indirectly benefited from the grey market that has tripled the value of its product and raised demand to a fever pitch By the end of April, Los Angeles was in the grip of a luxury watch crime wave. A man at a shopping centre near my old house was pistol-whipped by a robber who demanded his $30,000 Rolex. I began to worry if it was even safe to wear one.

As Natalie’s birthday approached, we spent our weekends driving around Southern California visiting watch dealers. Some stores had photocopied “wanted” posters in their windows, featuring the faces of Rolex watches instead of missing folks. In Santa Barbara we found an unauthorised dealer with a meagre selection of vintage Rolex models. Natalie tried on a Rolex Air-King, a watch released in 1945 and briefly discontinued in 2014. It is a model that GQ has described as “not exactly beloved by watch enthusiasts”, but it was a men’s size, and it looked surprisingly great on her wrist. Natalie said she could eventually hand it down to our son. The tag read $8,000. It was too much, I said. The salesperson pointed at my wrist and asked if I would consider selling my Submariner.

“Rolex stopped being a retail brand last year and shows no sign of returning any time soon,” Corder proclaimed on WatchPro in February. “The reality today is that members of the public cannot simply walk into a shop and walk out with a Rolex . . . damage is most certainly being done.”

The damage could be long term. Brehnen Knight, who founded a marketing agency called Engage Youth, says that Gen Z will not simply inherit the notion of Rolex as a status symbol. Rolex doesn’t market to teens, but when Gen Z age-out of buying Casio G-Shock watches, Knight says there’s a risk they won’t be interested in buying a Rolex at all. “They certainly wouldn’t want to develop any sort of long-term relationship with a dealer or distributor in order to access a Rolex,” he says.

A sudden crypto crash this year poured cold water over the hot secondary watch market, and the flippers and speculators no longer clamoured for Rolex. This came as a relief for CD Peacock’s Steven Holtzman, who took over the running of the company from his father, Seymour, last year. He told The New York Times: “We’re finding we have less clients coming in looking for opportunistic situations. It’s a much better situation for us.” Undeterred by the market, CD Peacock is forging ahead with the construction of a $20mn-plus flagship store in suburban Chicago, which will reportedly house a two-level Rolex boutique.

By failing to control the grey market, Rolex risks driving customers, like me, into a dark secondary market where they risk buying a lemon or, worse, a fake. It’s now easier to buy a counterfeit Rolex online than it is to try to romance an authorised dealer. According to a study conducted by the EU Intellectual Property Office, more young people are OK with buying counterfeit products, with 37 per cent of young customers admitting to buying a fake on purpose. “I think a lot of Rolexes on the secondary market are in fact totally fake,” Wind tells me.

Worried about getting cheated, I returned to Wanna Buy a Watch, where I bought my vintage Rolex. The store has enjoyed a strong reputation since the early 1980s, and inside I found a vintage Air-King, like the one my wife had tried on in Santa Barbara. It was in excellent condition, with no warranty, no box and no papers. (In Rolex parlance it was “naked.”) I had discovered that the Air-King is an homage to aviators including Charles Douglas Barnard, an Englishman who used his Rolex as an onboard chronometer, and I felt a sort of connection to it. It was $4,800.

I took the risk and handed over the cash in a brown paper lunch bag (a move I learnt from the CD Peacock scandal). When Natalie opened her gift in front of friends and family, I was horrified to see that the watch had stopped. Briefly, so did my heart. I fired off a furious email to the store. “Very sorry for the disappointment and embarrassment,” the owner, Ken Jacobs, wrote back. A watchmaker swiftly replaced a displaced jewel, and soon it was happily ticking away on her wrist.

By then, Rolex was quietly at work on a plan to offer certified pre-owned watches to customers. This month, the watchmaker announced that anyone can now purchase a second-hand Rolex through Bucherer, the brand’s official retailer, in six European countries, with a certification and a guarantee. It’s a move that will quash the grey market and make birthdays easier.

Natalie said she preferred the vintage model.

It wasn’t like the one on all the billboards and Instagram. It even reminded her of me, she joked: English and old. I must admit, it did look incredible and, when she put it on her wrist, I told her: “Welcome to the club.”

FT : Bolt-on takeovers are better than betting the ranch

Bolt-on takeovers are better than betting the ranch
Small family-run businesses prove lucrative for consolidation into Bunzl

Mergers and acquisitions generate headlines for companies, payouts for banks and limelight for executives. But savvy shareholders should be wary of big, flashy takeovers. Their contribution to value creation is highly questionable. Most appear to destroy long-term shareholder value.

Take Vodafone’s €190bn (£167bn) deal to buy the telecom assets of Germany’s Mannesmann in 2000. The deal remains the most expensive takeover on record. Vodafone stock has since lost 70 per cent of its value.

Or look at AB InBev’s deal to buy SABMiller in 2016 for $70bn. Shares in the world’s biggest brewer have never recovered.

Successful acquisitions are more likely to be small, low-key affairs. A master of what is known as the “bolt-on” strategy is UK-listed distribution group Bunzl. Since 2004, the group has completed 194 acquisitions. This week it confirmed revenues during 2022 would be 17 per cent higher than last year.

Bunzl specialises in distributing working capital items such as napkins for restaurants or needles for hospitals. It operates across the world and in many different sectors.

In a fragmented market, multiple small, family-run businesses are ripe for consolidation into Bunzl’s decentralised system. In the five years to 2021, the average size of a Bunzl deal has been £40mn. That is peanuts compared with the megamergers Lex usually writes about. But it has been lucrative for Bunzl shareholders.

Revenues from delivering everyday items has risen roughly in line with broader economic growth. Organic annual revenue growth has averaged 2.4 per cent since 2006. Bolt-ons provide a value-added boost. Growth rises sharply to 8.3 per cent annually once acquisitions are included.

The result is a healthy 19 per cent average return on capital invested. This is comfortably ahead of the group’s weighted average cost of capital of 6-8 per cent. As a result, Bunzl shares have returned 225 per cent over the past decade and have comfortably outperformed the FTSE All-Share index. Discipline is needed to maintain this performance.

When deals fail, it is usually because personally ambitious chief executives pay too much. Vodafone took over Mannesmann at a price that was an incredible 50 times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. These days, telecoms stocks are lucky if they can break into double-digit ebitda valuation multiples.


One benefit of Bunzl’s “think small” strategy is that price discipline is easier when there is a multiplicity of potential vendors. The company, a former maker of cigarette filters which was derided as “Bungle” in unhappier times, has typically paid between 6-8 times ebitda. It has maintained that throughout the cycle.

Bolt-on deals also have the advantage that they can be systematised. The purchaser establishes a routine of buying up smaller competitors, integrating them and cutting costs to raise margins.

Many acquirers start out with this plan but get carried away with the lure of bigger and bigger deals. Such has been the fate of many “roll-up” strategies, which are similar to bolt-on M&A but with a greater tendency to end in tears.

Take UK software roll-up Micro Focus. It built a sound reputation purchasing old software assets and taking out costs. That worked well until it bit off more than it could chew buying Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s software business for $9bn in 2017. As it struggled to integrate the company, investors sold up.

Big takeovers remain a temptation for company bosses. Highly paid bankers promote them adeptly. Executive pay deals contain elements that can be boosted with a big debt-funded takeover. After reaching record heights in 2021, big ticket M&A has been put on pause. It will eventually return. Shareholder caution is prudent.

PrimeStone chucks a rock
Activist investor PrimeStone seems to agree with Lex on big deals. It opposes plans by Brenntag, the world’s largest chemical distributor, to buy its number two peer Univar. PrimeStone thinks a bolt-on strategy would produce better returns.

Expensive takeovers are often justified on the grounds that they save costs or create revenue “synergies”, for example via cross-selling. But that depends on customers staying put. London-based PrimeStone is sceptical they will do so if Germany’s Brenntag combines with Univar of the US.

It is easy to see why a deal appeals to Brenntag management. Supply chain turmoil during the pandemic has boosted profits. That effect is now fading and shares have been slowly deflating. A major takeover could bring with it the chance to cut costs and push up margins.

But PrimeStone, which holds 2 per cent of Brenntag’s shares, thinks this logic is flawed. It believes a deal would instead trigger an exodus of customers spooked by the risk to their supply chains of swapping two suppliers for one. Some might defect to independent distributors. The activist says exactly that happened after Univar acquired rival Nexeo in 2018, erasing some $220mn of organic ebitda over the course of the years following.

PrimeStone, co-founded by ex-Carlyle executives, bases its views in part on the way chemicals are distributed. Bulk and speciality chemicals are handled differently. The latter tend to be distributed via exclusive contracts. The former are sold through more of a free-for-all. It is here that customer risk is concentrated.

The activist believes Brenntag should split itself into a bulk chemicals group and a speciality chemicals company. Pure play groups of the latter type command significantly higher ratings; IMCD and Azelis trade on 22 times forward earnings against Brenntag’s nine times.

Lex calculates that spinning off speciality chemicals would add around one-third to the current group value of €8.8bn. Over two-fifths of Brenntag’s profits originate from this division. Growth could then flow from smaller bolt-on acquisitions. Lex sides with tiny PrimeStone in its face-off with mighty Brenntag.

FT : TSMC in talks with suppliers over first European plant

TSMC in talks with suppliers over first European plant
World’s largest chipmaker to send senior executives to Dresden early next year to discuss potential factory project in Germany

TSMC is in advanced talks with key suppliers about setting up its first potential European plant in the German city of Dresden, a move that would allow the world’s largest chipmaker to capitalise on booming demand from the region’s car industry.

The Taiwanese company is sending a team of senior executives to Germany early next year to discuss the level of government support for the prospective plant as well as the capacity of the local supply chain to meet its needs, according to people familiar with the matter.

The trip will be the second in six months by TSMC executives and a final decision on whether to invest billions of dollars in a plant, which could begin construction as early as 2024, is expected to follow soon after, the people said.

Last year TSMC was asked by customers to consider building a plant in Europe, but halted an initial review following the invasion of Ukraine. But growing demand from Europe’s carmakers for a locally-manufactured supply of chips has prompted TSMC to revisit the idea, the people said.

A decision to build the plant would be a major boost for the EU, which is racing to cut its reliance on importing semiconductors — vital components in everything from smartphones to cars — from Asia. Brussels earlier this year approved €43bn in subsidies in a bid to attract chipmakers to Europe.

TSMC’s talks with several materials and equipment suppliers are focused on whether they can also make the investments required to support the plant, people familiar with the matter said.

Manufacturing chips is a complex process relying on more than 50 types of equipment, such as lithography and etching machines, and over 2,000 materials including chemicals and industrial gases.

“We would try to support our customers. We wouldn’t let [them] walk alone in the desert,” said one executive from a supplier that would provide key materials to the Dresden plant, adding that state support would be required.

Surging energy costs and higher inflation have already prompted US chip group Intel to seek more support from the German government for its plan to build a €17bn for plant in the eastern city of Magdeburg.

Intel is still committed to investing in Europe but the Magdeburg plant had to be competitive, according to people familiar with the matter.

If TSMC presses ahead with a Dresden plant, it would focus on 22-nanometre and 28-nanometre chip technologies, similar to those it plans to make in a factory it is developing with Sony in Japan. Nanometres refer to the size of each transistor on a chip — the smaller the nanometre, the more powerful and advanced the semiconductor.

TSMC will have to weigh up whether building a plant in Dresden will put too much of a strain on its workforce. The chipmaker is already sending several hundred engineers to support new plants it is building in the US and has said it would need to deploy 500 to 600 more to help set up the factory in Japan.

Europe, the Middle East and Africa account for roughly 6 per cent of TSMC sales, a fraction of the 65 per cent the group generates from North America.

A TSMC spokesperson said that “no possibility” was being ruled out regarding a potential plant in Dresden.

TSMC’s overseas expansion comes as global chipmakers such as Intel and Samsung race to expand capacity. The world’s three biggest chipmakers are committed to investing at least $380bn over the next decade to build new factories in Taiwan, South Korea, the US, Japan, Germany, Ireland and Israel.

In the US, The Chips Act, which was proposed in 2020 and passed by Congress last year, has triggered $200bn of private investment in the country’s chipmaking capacity, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association.

The speed of the global expansion has raised questions about the risk of the industry facing a glut of chips if global economic growth slows sharply. But with the global semiconductor market forecast to reach $1tn in value by 2030, chipmakers must decide now on how they will meet that expected demand given that it takes years to build plants.

>>> US After Hours Summary: Quiet after hours session; AVO -12.7% lower on earni

After Hours Summary: Quiet after hours session; AVO -12.7% lower on earnings; MRSN +1.5% higher on collaboration with Merck

After Hours Gainers:

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: None

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news: LPTV +11.7% (files for $150 mln mixed securities shelf offering), AWK +2.7% (to acquire West San Martin Water Works potable water distribution system), MRSN +1.5% (MRSN and MRK announce collaboration and commercial license agreement), ENVX +0.6% (to demonstrate breakthrough battery technology at CES 2023), NBIX +0.2% (FDA accepts sNDA for valbenazine), HUM +0.2% (selected by U.S. Defense Health Agency to provide managed care support), ENFN +0.1% (names new CEO)

After Hours Losers:

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: AVO -12.7%, LMNR -9.2%

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news: FORG -0.9% (receives request for additional info from DoJ regarding merger with Project Fortress), HLTH -0.4% (selected by Minnesota Dept of Health to provide COVID-19 telehealth), CHPT -0.3% (CTO to resign, names new COO), MRK -0.1% (MRSN and MRK announce collaboration and commercial license agreement), GILD -0.1% (Yescarta now approved in Japan for initial treatment of lymphoma), WFRD -0.1% (signs multi-year agreement with DataRobot)

>>> US Close Dow -1,05% S&P -1,45% Nasdaq -2,18% Russell -1,29%

Closing Stock Market Summary

The positive bias driving yesterday's gains dissipated today amid thinner holiday trading conditions. Market participants were reacting to disappointing earnings results and commentary from Micron (MU 49.43, -1.76, -3.4%) and CarMax (KMX 57.20, -2.17, -3.7%), a dour Leading Economic Indicators report, and some cautious-sounding remarks from influential hedge fund manager David Tepper on the market's prospects.

The market's concerns about the Fed potentially overtightening and causing a deeper economic setback, which has plagued investors for most of December, were stoked by the following factors:

  • Micron noted it will be cutting approximately 10% of its staff in response to challenging industry conditions.
  • CarMax said it expects widespread inflationary pressures, climbing interest rates, and low consumer confidence to remain headwinds for unit sales.
  • The November Leading Economic Index was down 1.0% (consensus -0.4%), logging its ninth straight monthly decline.
  • David Tepper said he is leaning short the equity markets as he expects the Fed and other central banks to keep tightening and for rates to remain high for a while, making it "difficult for things to go up." His comments resonated with market participants who recalled the hugely successful "Tepper Bottom" call he made in March 2009.

There was a bit of good news in play, too. The third estimate to Q3 GDP showed an upward revision to 3.2% (consensus 2.9%) from the second estimate of 2.9%, and weekly initial claims held at a remarkably low level of 216,000 ( consensus 225,000) for the week ending December 17 that is consistent with a tight labor market.

That good news did not offer support to the broader market presumably due to the understanding that it should persuade the Fed to remain on a tightening path. There was a compounding effect in that understanding since the data followed shortly after David Tepper told CNBC that he thinks the Fed and other central banks will keep tightening beyond what the market currently believes.

The resulting retreat was broad in nature with the major indices moving noticeably lower right out of the gate. The Nasdaq, S&P 500, and Dow were down 3.7%, 2.9%, and 2.4%, respectively, at today's lows.

The S&P 500 was stuck below the 3,800 level and Tuesday's low (3,795) for most of the session before the main indices managed to pare some of their losses in the afternoon trade. There was no specific news catalyst to account for the bounce, which appeared to be driven by some speculative bargain hunting interest following the early washout.

All 11 S&P 500 sectors closed in the red. The countercyclical health care (-0.2%) and consumer staples (-0.3%) sectors showed the slimmest losses while the heavily weighted consumer discretionary (-2.6%) and information technology (-2.5%) sectors fell to the bottom of the pack.

The consumer discretionary sector was weighed down by ongoing selling pressure in Tesla (TSLA 125.35, -12.22, -8.9%). This comes after news that Tesla will offer $7,500 discounts on Model 3 and Model Y cars this month, according to Reuters.

  • Dow Jones Industrial Average: -9.1% YTD
  • S&P Midcap 400: -14.9% YTD
  • S&P 500: -19.8% YTD
  • Russell 2000: -21.9% YTD
  • Nasdaq Composite: -33.0% YTD

Reviewing today's economic data:

  • The third estimate for Q3 GDP revealed that consumer spending increased 2.3%, versus 1.7% in the second estimate, and 2.0% in the second quarter. That upward revision helped drive an upward revision for Q3 GDP growth to 3.2% (consensus 2.9%) from the second estimate of 2.9%. The GDP Price Deflator was revised up to 4.4% ( consensus 4.3%) from 4.3%.
    • The key takeaway from the report is that growth in the third quarter was stronger than previously expected and above potential, which is also why the Fed continued to raise rates aggressively in the third quarter.
  • The latest weekly initial claims report won't silence the concerns about future Fed tightening either. Initial claims for the week ending December 17 increased by 2,000 to 216,000 (consensus 225,000). Continuing claims for the week ending December 10 decreased by 6,000 to 1.672 million.\
    • The key takeaway from the report is that initial claims remain at remarkably low levels associated with a tight labor market. In turn, a tight labor market will remain associated with more Fed tightening.
  • Leading Economic Index fell 1.0% in November (consensus -0.4%) following a revised -0.9% reading in October (from -0.8%).
  • Weekly EIA Natural Gas Inventories showed a draw of 87 bcf versus last week's draw of 50 bcf

Looking ahead to Friday, market participants will receive the following economic data:

  • 8:30 ET: November Durable Orders ( consensus -1.0%; prior 1.0%), Durable Orders ex-transportation ( consensus 0.1%; prior 0.5%), November Personal Income ( consensus 0.3%; prior 0.7%), Personal Spending (consensus 0.1%; prior 0.8%), PCE Prices (consensus 0.2%; prior 0.3%), and core PCE Prices (consensus 0.3%; prior 0.2%)
  • 10:00 ET: November New Home Sales (consensus 600,000; prior 632,000) and final December University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey (consensus 59.1; prior 59.1)

WWD : Zadig & Voltaire Sales Jump Amid Accelerated U.S. Push

Zadig & Voltaire Sales Jump Amid Accelerated U.S. Push
The French company reported sales were up 49 percent in Q3, as it opens flagships in New York and L.A.

PARIS — French contemporary brand Zadig & Voltaire’s U.S. sales skyrocketed in the third quarter, the brand reported in a trading update.

The company reported sales in the U.S. were up 49 percent year-over-year in the three months from July 1 to Sept. 30. The sales numbers come as the company has made a play to expand its footprint there, opening splashy flagships on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills and Madison Avenue in New York in October. The Madison Avenue flagship is the brand’s second store on the famed shopping street.

The brand has doubled its U.S. doors since 2017 to a total of 38 branded stores, 27 stand-alone boutiques and 11 outlet stores across the country. Zadig & Voltaire also has corners in 27 Bloomingdale’s stores.

Sales across the EU were also strong, ringing up an additional 21.4 percent in the third quarter. The company also opened a flagship on this side of the pond, staking its claim in London’s new Battersea Power Station in October.

Globally, Zadig & Voltaire reported sales are up 32 percent in the first nine months of 2022 to Sept. 30.

The rock-chic label has been repositioning itself and emphasizing its French roots under designer Cecilia Bönström. After several seasons of showing in New York, it returned to to Paris for an off-calendar show in June and will continue to show in its home city going forward.

The brand chalks up much of this growth to its new branding strategy, focusing on the high end of the high street with a price point of around 350 euros to 400 euros and the aggressive expansion of its accessories offer.

“This result stems from the strong branding strategy we deployed starting June 2022 and the affirmation of our ‘effortless luxury’ status. From this starting point, we engaged in putting creativity, brand reputation and visibility at the heart of Zadig & Voltaire’s strategy,” said director of communication and influence Jordan Henrion. Much of that effort has focused on TikTok, and outreach to younger consumers on social media.

The brand said global social reach has jumped 342 percent in the U.S. and 206 percent in the EU in the second half of 2022, compared to the same period in 2021. The company aggregated numbers from ad spending as well as social VIP and influencers of Meta, Twitter and TikTok in figures as measured by Launchmetrics and influencer marketing platform Kolsquare.

In a financial plan laid out in 2021, the company’s focus had largely been on expansion in China. At the time chief executive officer Rémy Baume laid out an ambitious growth plan for 2022 to 2025, including a major push in China after it bought back its stake from former partner IT Group in 2020. It opened its first revamped store in Hong Kong on June 16.

Those plans have been hampered due to the rolling shutdowns the country faced as part of its now-defunct zero-COVID-19 policy.

“Given the situation in China over the last months, we are for now focusing on Europe and America,” a spokesperson said.

The company will release full financial results in January. It has scheduled its next Paris fashion show the day after the official Haute Couture week closes on Jan. 27.

(ZH) Schizophrenic Morgan Stanley EV Note Saw Uber-Bull Adam Jonas Re-It Overwei

Schizophrenic Morgan Stanley EV Note Saw Uber-Bull Adam Jonas Re-It Overweight $330 Target, Hours Before Tesla Plunged Further

Just hours before today's shellacking in shares of Tesla, Morgan Stanley looked as though they were starting to wave the white flag not just on the Elon Musk-led company, but on electric vehicles as a whole.
In a note released Wednesday called "Tesla’s Decline: Will Big Auto ‘Blink’ On Electric Vehicles?", analysts led by Tesla sycophant Adam Jonas posed the question of whether or not it is "time to consider alternative technological paths in addition to EVs".
The note can only be described as schizophrenic. In it, Jonas makes key arguments against Tesla and the industry, while noting the progress of Tesla's competitors. Despite that, Jonas doesn't change his overweight stance on the name.
Despite skepticism, the note - which was released just hours before Tesla would shed another 11% - says it views the sell off in shares of Tesla as a "buying opportunity" and perfunctorily reiterated an overweight rating on the name. Great work, guys.
Jonas first explored the impact of rising rates on the sector: "It was far easier to take EV hegemony for granted at 0% Fed funds and when Tesla was a trillion $ company. Are we sure batteries are the only (or ultimate) path to decarbonizing transport? Is the technology cheap enough? Is our electric grid ready? Are the enabling policies viable? Stories like Porsche (covered by Harald Hendrikse) investing in eFuels as a ‘dual path’ / complementary technology to EVs is worth watching."
And another brick in the wall of Jonas' bull case, quizzically, was that Tesla was likely going to continue discounting: "Tesla’s price cuts started in China and we expect them to quickly spread to Europe and the US. While circular in nature, lower EV prices are important for the next leg of mass adoption, but depress the returns of many of the companies expected to compete against Tesla."
Jonas also seemed to allude to how he thought Ford was leading the industry on the shift to EV: "We believe Ford’s divisional re-organization may be an important moment for the industry in understanding the trade-offs of capital allocation and margin loss vs. terminal value preservation in legacy autos. While the intercompany transfer pricing and impact of government incentives may take a while to sift through, we expect a more open and balanced understanding of the risk/reward for EVs".
He also looked at Toyota as a new formidable competitor in the space: "Akio Toyoda, leader of the world’s largest and highest valued legacy auto company, Toyota (covered by Shinji Kakiuchi), refers to the ‘silent majority’ of auto executives who question over-committing to EV strategies at the sacrifice of other decarbonizing technologies. The vocal majority of auto industry followers (this author included) had criticized Toyota’s resistance to keep up with EV launches from competitors. While Toyota will eventually achieve scale in EVs, the later/follower approach may prove optimal over time."
He also believes managing cash burn is going to be crucial for the industry: "With respect to emerging (non-Tesla) EV startup strategy we believe ‘hunkering down’ to manage the pace of cash burn is a winning strategy. We anticipate more challenging capital markets environment may limit the number of EV players that can achieve sustainable scale."
Finally, he comments that many large players in the industry will be forced to rejigger their spending plans and timelines now that the playing field has become saturated and rates have risen:
"Volkswagen (covered by Harald Hendrikse) spends its entire enterprise value in combined capex + R&D in just ~1 year. How long companies spend at this rate? In our view, it's the capital not deployed that can frequently create the most value in auto stocks. In 2023, we think legacy automakers like GM and Ford have an opportunity to reconsider the quantum and timing of their EV investment plans last established during a very different economic and interest rate environment of 2020/2021."