FT : The next subprime crisis could be in food

The next subprime crisis could be in food
If trade financing is out of reach for small and midsized farmers, everyone may suffer

Of all the many problems caused by Covid-19, three of the most visible have been food insecurity, the demise of small businesses and asset market volatility.

All of those things might be poised to get worse, thanks to an unexpected but important financial shift. Big banks, including ABN Amro, ING and BNP Paribas, are either pulling out of commodity trade financing or scaling it back. This will leave a funding hole for some farmers, agricultural producers and distributors, as well as grocery chains and other small and medium-sized companies that represent crucial parts of the global food supply chain.

The problem is like a gigantic iceberg under the surface of financial markets, one that we can’t yet see but are nonetheless headed for, according to Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland’s Carey School of Law and former director of trading and markets at the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

He is worried that if second and third-tier agricultural companies — who depend on such financing for things like shipping or manufacturing but also to hedge prices in a volatile industry — cannot get funding or are forced to pay higher rates to shadow lenders, we could see a food price surge. We might also see greater corporate concentration and increased market risk, he notes, possibly within the next couple of months.

“Every commercial producer has to hedge risk by buying futures contracts,” says Prof Greenberger, who points out that growing cycles take months, during which time prices can fluctuate wildly. In order to do that, they may need short-term trade financing.

If banks are willing to lend only to the largest and most established players, for example the big global commodities traders such as Vitol Group, Trafigura and Mercuria, or American agricultural giants including Cargill, ADM or Bunge, then small and midsized producers will be forced to go to shadow banks, a practice that is already common. That, along with the lack of transparency that comes with having no single clearinghouse for such deals, makes it nearly impossible for lenders to tell if, for example, a borrower may have pledged the same collateral more than once.

Already, there are signs of the looming risks. Last spring, a series of commodity trading scandals in Singapore — including the blow-up of Hin Leong Trading after its founder hid $800m in losses — highlighted not only garden variety fraud, but the fact that opacity, leverage and volatility in the commodities sector make it a particularly risky area for large banks to do business.

Given the pressure that banks are already under, with higher capital requirements from international regulations compounded by new funding pressures from the pandemic, it’s no wonder that many of them have simply decided to pull out, or just do business with the largest brand name clients that have the biggest balance sheets.

This exacerbates an existing trend that is gaining steam post-Covid-19: the biggest companies are getting even bigger. This was true in agriculture, as in so many sectors, long before the pandemic hit. But Covid-19 has starkly exposed the vulnerabilities of monopoly power in food, creating supply gluts in some areas and shortages and higher prices in others. A handful of large companies have controlled areas such as meat packing and grain production, often doing business with only one type of distributor — a restaurant, for example, but not a grocery store. The result was certainly an economically “efficient” system, but one that turned out to be quite fragile as well.

Prof Greenberger and some other experts believe that the shifts of big banks away from trade finance could expose more such fragility. “The first order of worry is being able to get a futures contract — will small producers have to pay a lot more for one? Then, if the contract goes against you, can you make your margin payment?”

If some of them can’t, it is easy to imagine another disruption in supply chains creating more chaos and food insecurity later this year. That could possibly provoke market volatility if enough highly leveraged agricultural companies went out of business at once.

Not only would the demise of smaller farmers have a knock-on effect on other businesses, including packaging, manufacturing and transport, but their debt — particularly if packaged into risky securitised products — could become a broader market risk.

At the very least, given higher lending costs for a large chunk of producers, higher food prices would seem a foregone conclusion. That won’t be happy news for the legions of unemployed consumers struggling to make ends meet.

This underscores a key point — the ramifications of commodity price disruptions are very often not just economic. They become political, too. Social unrest and even revolutions often start when the prices of food and fuel spike. Bread riots were one of the catalysts for the Arab uprising of 2011. In the US, the oil price spike that began the same year led to senate hearings about whether the problems of the 2008 financial crisis, including risky trading on the part of big banks, had yet been solved.

Big banks have thrived despite the restrictions put on them over the past decade. Big Agriculture and commodities traders will probably do the same now. Others may not be so lucky.

FT : Why big tech stocks can weather the storm

Fifty years of shareholder value have swollen monopoly power
We will not leave Friedman’s doctrine behind until there is a European movement to rebuild competition

The writer is co-founder of the Inclusive Competition Forum and author of ‘Competition is Killing Us: How Big Business is Harming Our Society and Planet and What To Do About It’

Fifty years ago on Sunday, Milton Friedman published the article that would guarantee his lasting influence. “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” became the canonical statement on shareholder value, with Friedman giving conflicted chief executives a simple guiding principle: when in doubt, maximise profits. 

Friedman’s argument was considered outrageous in 1970, and is again being criticised today. The influential US Business Roundtable group of executives publicly rejected the primacy of shareholder value last year and many companies and investors tout their focus on stakeholders and sustainability.

Yet we remain captured by Friedman’s legacy. Business may talk the talk of corporate responsibility, but it is walking a different walk. Working as a competition lawyer in the City of London, I saw first hand as executives competed to dominate markets and push share prices ever higher.

Competition law is meant to check corporate power, yet markets are growing more concentrated under regulators’ noses. Stanford University economist Mordecai Kurz calculated in 2015 that 82 per cent of stock market value came from the tech sector’s “monopoly wealth”. It may be more now: a tech-friendly pandemic has seen prices soar.

For users, choice is often an illusion. Take dating apps: you might choose OKCupid, Tinder or Hinge but all three are owned by Match.com. Google and Facebook have built an online advertising duopoly. A handful of companies control global agribusiness. Amazon now part-owns Deliveroo. Paralysed regulators have been complicit.

Concentrated markets are often linked to growing inequality, disempowerment of workers, hollowing out of communities and environmental harm — all problems that stakeholder capitalists say they are trying to fix. Monopolised industries tend to operate by their own, self-reflexive logic, with the interests of incumbents automatically equated to those of the industry. When regulators do catch up to the titans, the fines levied can be easily absorbed as a cost of doing business. Whether it is DuPont’s $671m payout for poisoning the water in West Virginia or Facebook’s $5bn settlement for the Cambridge Analytica scandal, investors barely blink. Consumers have little place to turn.

Companies that are guided by an ethical duty must contend with competitors that believe that monopoly will trump morality. Companies such as Amazon and Uber swallowed year after year of losses as they bankrupted rivals and built market share. Once entrenched, these systemically important companies will not budge.

Remember that Friedman added a caveat to his “profits first” edict. Business should maximise earnings “so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”. Yet the historic emphasis on shareholder value has led some companies to seek monopoly power by controlling the rules of the game, and even through deception and fraud. That distorts the very idea of competition.

Gigantic corporations have their own gravitational pull, morphing into economic black holes. Stakeholder capitalism will not be able to resist the drag. We must disperse economic concentrations, democratise corporate power and dissolve monopolies that are able to distort markets and society. Voluntary efforts by business will not be enough. Competition law and corporate law must be used to their full potential.

America gave us both Friedman and Silicon Valley, fostering the perception that this is a US problem. But we are all at the mercy of global as well as homegrown monopolies. We need a European movement to rebuild competition, to protect our democracy and the hope of a resilient future. Only then will we leave Friedman’s doctrine behind.

FT : Why big tech stocks can weather the storm

Why big tech stocks can weather the storm
This week’s rare share-price drop for these businesses is a respite, not an omen

Calling a market top has wrongfooted pundits through the ages, but this week’s first correction in large US tech stocks since March has stirred the debate again.

Given the outsized influence that tech names and other growth stocks hold over the S&P 500 blue-chip index, their performance from here matters greatly for the broader equity market and for any investors tracking Wall Street with exchange traded funds.

Recent buyers of big tech stocks, alongside retail punters and institutions involved in speculative equity call option activity, are enduring the most heat at the moment. The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 index has taken a hit and measures of market volatility remain elevated. A further shake-out of option trades means stocks are likely to remain choppy. To add to the mix, US presidential and congressional elections are just weeks away.

So far this has not rattled broader investor sentiment too badly. Fund managers largely agree that the market had been in need of a “healthy correction” to blow some of the froth off Big Tech and provide a fresh buying opportunity at more attractive prices.

This attitude also reflects a level of comfort among tech investors. A buyer of the March low in the Nasdaq 100 — a bet which appears to have been led by hedge funds at the expense of other traditional managers — holds a gain of nearly 60 per cent, even after the latest bout of selling. Investment portfolios that have ridden the tech and growth stock juggernaut for much of the past decade, and particularly from early 2016, have a far bigger cushion to soften short-term blows.

One big problem for those keen to bet on a bigger tech correction: what is the alternative? Tech still offers solid growth prospects and the potential for a significant return on equity. It still looks good for a while yet, reflecting the acceleration of digital trends for business, education and households in the wake of the pandemic. The premium for owning best-in-class stocks is arguably justified, given a business cycle supported by low interest rates and modest inflation pressure over the next few years.

Even in the event of a vaccine for Covid-19 arriving, shifts in behaviour inspired by the pandemic will keep rewarding innovation and disruption — qualities that define tech companies.

Still, elevated valuations require vindication in the form of robust earnings growth over the coming quarters.

Before the latest wave of selling, the tech herd had effortlessly propelled price-to-earnings multiples — a common valuation measure — for equity leaders and the Nasdaq 100 into the danger zone associated with the dotcom bubble. For example, the US equity team at Citigroup calculates that once lower corporate tax rates are factored into valuations, the top 10 US tech companies are trading at a trailing 12-month price-to-earnings ratio of 75 times, almost precisely in line with the turn of the century.

It is natural, therefore, to draw comparisons with the crashes that followed other market peaks, particularly those of 2000 and 2007. But those market heights were followed by a protracted decline in earnings growth over ensuing quarters, whereas the hit from the pandemic appears less extensive. Wall Street analysts expect a recovery during the second half of 2020 that gains momentum into 2021.

The safest bet, perhaps, is for a middling performance from here. Aside from valuation concerns, certain tech names with strong business models may have to contend with a stronger antitrust regulatory line from governments in the coming months. The prospect of higher corporate taxes and even levies on windfall profits is serious.

But here is what keeps Wall Street bulls going: “Unless earnings decline noticeably and prove high valuations wrong, stocks do not drop in any persistent way,” observes Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek.

And of course, the interest-rate environment of 2020 is unprecedented. True, the Nasdaq 100 trades around a hefty 40 times earnings for the next 12 months, according to the CME Group. But turn that PE ratio upside down to get the earnings yield for these stocks, at 2.5 per cent. Unlike 2000, this proxy measure of returns sits well above the current 1.4 per cent on offer from the 30-year Treasury bond. 

That makes it hard to call time on big tech and the equity growth bull run. A meaningful decline would require a profound shift in well-established economic and financial trends. It would also require a break in monetary policy that few consider to be realistic. Ultimately, other sectors of the stock market will play catch-up with tech only when there is evidence of a broader economic recovery and the rekindling of inflation pressure. Don’t hold your breath.

FT : SoftBank set to sell UK’s Arm Holdings to Nvidia for $40bn

SoftBank set to sell UK’s Arm Holdings to Nvidia for $40bn
Sale comes four years after Masayoshi Son bought the chip designer

SoftBank is set to sell the UK’s Arm Holdings to US chip company Nvidia for more than $40bn, just four years after its founder Masayoshi Son bought the chip designer and said it would be the linchpin for the future of the Japanese technology group. 

Multiple people with direct knowledge of the matter said a cash-and-stock takeover of Arm by Nvidia may be announced as soon as Monday, and that SoftBank will become the largest shareholder in the US chip company. 

The announcement of the deal hinged on SoftBank ending a messy dispute between Arm and the head of its China joint venture, Allen Wu, who earlier rebuffed an attempt to remove him and claimed legal control of the unit. 

Several people close to SoftBank said the matter was now “resolved”, though one person close to Mr Wu said he “remains the chairman of Arm China”. A spokesperson for Mr Wu declined to comment. 

The takeover values Arm above the $32bn price that SoftBank paid for the business in 2016, a deal that was struck weeks after the UK voted to leave the European Union and prompted critics including Arm’s founder to accuse the country of selling off the crown jewel of its tech sector.

While Nvidia is paying more for the asset than SoftBank did, the price also reflects the scale of Arm’s underperformance under the Japanese group’s ownership.

Nvidia had a market valuation of roughly similar to that of Arm’s at the time of the 2016 deal, but now trades with a market value of $300bn, or roughly 10 times the amount SoftBank paid in cash for Arm. By paying for a large portion of the deals with its own shares, it is also passing part of the risk of the transaction to SoftBank.

For Nvidia, which recently overtook Intel to become the world’s most valuable chipmaker, the deal will further consolidate the US company’s position at the centre of the semiconductor industry. The British chip designer’s technology is starting to find broader applications beyond mobile devices, in data centres and personal computers including Apple’s Macs. 

Arm would transform Nvidia’s product line-up, which until now has largely focused on the high end of the chips market. Its powerful graphics processors — which are designed to handle focused, data-intensive tasks — are typically sold to PC gamers, scientific researchers and developers of artificial intelligence and self-driving cars, as well as cryptocurrency miners.

To pave the way for the deal, SoftBank reversed an earlier decision to strip out an internet-of-things business from Arm and transfer it to a new company under its control. That would have stripped Arm of what was meant to be the high-growth engine that would power it into a 5G-connected future. One person said that SoftBank made the decision because it would have put it in conflict with commitments made to the U.K. over Arm, which were agreed at the time of the 2016 deal to appease the government. 

SoftBank's Vision Fund previously held a stake in Nvidia, in a rare publicly listed investment for the $100bn fund that focuses on private technology companies, but divested all of its shares early last year. Akshay Naheta, the 39-year old SoftBank executive who spearheaded that investment, has also been heavily involved in negotiations between the Japanese conglomerate and Nvidia.

The Vision Fund, which is run by Mr Naheta’s close ally and former colleague from Deutsche Bank, Rajeev Misra, controls a 25 per cent stake in Arm and will get compensated as part of the deal, another person added. 

One person close to the talks said that Nvidia would make commitments to the UK government over Arm’s future in Britain, where opposition politicians have recently insisted that any potential deal must safeguard British jobs.

The Wall Street Journal earlier reported on the deal's imminent announcement.

Additional reporting by Ryan McMorrow in Beijing 

NY Post : Chinese virologist claims she has proof COVID-19 was made in Wuhan lab

NY Post : Chinese virologist claims she has proof COVID-19 was made in Wuhan lab - https://bit.ly/2RoO3Fm


A Chinese virologist who has reportedly been in hiding for fear of her safety has stepped out into the public eye again to make the explosive claim that she has the scientific evidence to prove COVID-19 was man-made in a lab in China.

Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a scientist who says she did some of the earliest research into COVID-19 last year, made the comments Friday during an interview on British talk show “Loose Women.”

When asked where the deadly virus that has killed more than 900,000 around the globe comes from, Yan — speaking via video chat from a secret location — replied, “It comes from the lab — the lab in Wuhan and the lab is controlled by China’s government.”

She insisted that widespread reports that the virus originated last year from a wet market in Wuhan, China, are “a smokescreen.”

“The first thing is the [meat] market in Wuhan … is a smokescreen and this virus is not from nature,” Yan claimed, explaining that she got “her intelligence from the CDC in China, from the local doctors.”

The virologist has previously accused Beijing of lying about when it learned of the killer bug and engaging in an extensive cover-up of her work.

She had said that her former supervisors at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, a reference laboratory for the World Health Organization, silenced her when she sounded the alarm about human-to-human transmission in December last year.

In April, Yan reportedly fled Hong Kong and escaped to America to raise awareness about the pandemic.

Now, she said she is planning to release scientific evidence to prove that the virus was made inside a lab in Wuhan.

“The genome sequence is like a human finger print,” she told the talk show. “So based on this you can identify these things. I use the evidence … to tell people why this has come from the lab in China, why they are the only ones who made it.”

Yan added, “Anyone, even if you have no biology knowledge, you can read it, and you can check and identify and verify by yourself.”

“This is the critical thing for us to know the origin of the virus,” she said. “If not we cannot overcome it — it will be life-threatening for everyone.”

She said she is coming out now because “I know if I don’t tell the truth to the world, I will be regretful.”

Yan also claimed that before fleeing China, her information was wiped from government databases.

“They deleted all my information,” she told “Loose Women,” claiming that people have been recruited “to spread rumors about me, that I’m a liar.”

Yuan Zhiming, the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has previously denied reports that the bug accidentally spread from his facility.

“There’s no way this virus came from us,” Zhiming told state media in April.

>>> Japan Chief Cabinet Sec Suga (leading LDP Party leadership candidate): if th

Japan Chief Cabinet Sec Suga (leading LDP Party leadership candidate): if the pandemic worsens, govt will do whatever is necessary to protect jobs and businesses in Japan; no plans to raise sales tax for 10 years, but can't rule out future tax hikes - PM candidates debate
- If necessary I would consider topping up payouts to ease strains on the economy from the Covid pandemic- No rush to change BOJ's easing policy; must maintain 2% inflation target

>>> Barron’s Weekend Summary

Barron’s Weekend Summary: The tech sector may be in a bubble, but that doesn’t mean it’s ready to burst; Barron’s 2020 Top Independent Advisors

* Cover Story: The tech sector is in the midst of a bubble, but while the tech trade, including tech companies that aren’t officially labeled as such, went too far before correcting suddenly in the past two weeks, one correction doesn’t mean that the story is over, or that the bubble is ready to burst—on the contrary, the forces that drove stocks such as AAPL and AMZN astonishing heights remain firmly in place, including continued growth, Fed efforts to keep the economy afloat, and retail investors’ interest in trading.

* Tech Trader: “Subscriptions have remade the way Americans consume entertainment, food, and technology—and they’ve benefited investors, who love the certainty of recurring payments”; This trend is especially prevalent in gaming, where MSFT is set to offer financing for its new Xbox models that will include access to hundreds of games at no additional cost.

* Trader: Positive on GM: The automaker’s deal with NKLA may help it convince investors that its suite of new technologies should translate into a higher price/earnings multiple than its current single-digit one, and the tie-up signals that it can compete with even TSLA on battery cost and technical prowess; Things could get worse next year regardless of whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins the White House in November—2021 will be the first year of a presidential term, always tricky times for the stock market that will be more so given all the recent volatility.

* Profile: Chuck Bath and Austin Hawley, co-managers of the $7B Diamond Hill Large Cap fund, believe in the power of compounding rates, and the concept drives their management philosophy; As high-conviction managers, they hold about 50-60 stocks, and they seek business models where intrinsic value is growing consistently (top 10 holdings: ABT, AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, C, PG, MDLZ, PEP, DIS, KKR, MDT).

* Features: 1) Among a half-dozen Wall Street strategists whom Barron’s recently canvassed, none sees the S&P 500 ending the year very far from current levels—the strategists’ average year-end S&P 500 target is 3492, less than five percent above Friday’s close, though the group expects the picture to brighten in 2021; 2) Barron’s list of the Top 100 Independent Advisors is led by Spuds Powell of Kayne Anderson Rudnick Investment Management, Charles Zhang of Zhang Financial, Edward Cronin of Manchester Capital Management, Kimberlee Orth of Ameriprise Financial, and Richard Saperstein of Treasury Partners at HighTower; 3) The heavy buying of call options, which give holders the right to purchase individual stocks or indexes, helped fuel the August surge in stocks like AAPL and TSLA and probably contributed to a recent sharp reversal in tech stocks earlier this month; Much of the action this summer has been speculative trading, an attempt by investors to effectively get leveraged bets on leading stocks; 4) Positive on CROX: The footwear company once known for its resin clogs now has a varied product lineup, a growing e-commerce business, and a savvy social-media strategy based in part on brand ambassadors and licensing partnerships—analysts have applauded its turnaround efforts and see further room for growth as it partners with fashion influencers and entertainment giants such as DIS; 5) Positive on ELAN: Since Elanco Animal Health went public two years ago after spinning off from LLY, its shares have significantly trailed those of its larger rival, ZTS, but with its recent $7B acquisition of Bayer Animal Health, the company should be able to narrow the divide amid ongoing growth in the companion animal sector, and it is well positioned for gains; 6) “Investors have already mostly given up on the idea that the Treasury market can provide income, as the 10-year benchmark yield is now trading around 0.7 percent, down from 1.9 percent at the start of the year—but that selloff in Treasuries held another message for investors: don’t rely on the US government bond market to provide the same ballast that it did even a year ago”; 7) The SEC is trying to push Trump’s deregulatory agenda over the finish line, and has issued a range of new and proposed rules that may be good for some businesses, but not so good for investors, including proposals to streamline mutual fund and ETF disclosures, new rules on corporate disclosures and proxy advisors, and an expanded definition of “accredited” investors who are allowed to own non-publicly-traded companies or securities.

* European Trader: Barron’s asked a trio of European experts to forecast how the remainder of the year will pan out for investors, and they discuss three big uncertainties that hold the key to growth: coronavirus, the global economic recovery, and the US. presidential election—and even as Europe sees a second virus wave, the strategists believe stocks will continue to rally.

* Emerging Markets: Emerging markets have acted pretty much like developed markets for the past six months—a handful of tech stocks, concentrated in China, went on a rampage, pulling the broader asset class from the abyss it faced in March, yet the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF, which tracks the broader market, is only back to about even for 2020.

* Commodities: “Many of the biggest movers in commodities this year, including oil and precious metals, will continue to take the spotlight as the year draws on. Traders are trying to assess the effects of the pandemic on demand and are looking for signs of a global economic recovery.”

* Streetwise: Columnist Jack Hough looks at GM’s deal for NKLA, noting chief Marry Barry “has gotten the company out of loss-making Europe, and sharply reduced the number of vehicle sales needed to break even each year. What she hasn’t done since being named chief nearly seven years ago is produce a positive stock return, with or without dividends, during a massive bull market.

WSJ : Apple’s Coming iPhone, iPad, Watch and Mac: a Wish List

Apple’s Coming iPhone, iPad, Watch and Mac: a Wish List
A review of what features are missing in the latest iDevices, and what we hope to see from Apple in the final months of 2020

Ah, glorious September, the best month. It’s when the school year starts anew, the weather is just right, and sparkly new iPhones hit shelves.
In normal times, anyway. But these aren’t normal times.
This year has been turned upside down. This month, students are logging into Zoom classrooms, the West Coast is on fire, and Apple’s AAPL -1.31% annual September iPhone event is going virtual—and probably won’t feature the iPhone at all.
The only clue on the press invite for the streamed Tuesday announcement is “Time Flies.” A likely nod to Apple Watch, sure, but perhaps also reassurance that although we expect the next iPhones to be delayed, that delay will feel brief in hindsight.

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the company’s coming products.
In any case, rather than try to predict Apple’s plans at the most unpredictable of times, I decided to write a wish list: what we hope to see in the final months of 2020. It’s a review of our experiences with Apple devices—and competing offerings—throughout the past year and a look at what features are missing in the latest iDevices.
The current mid-tier iPhone, the iPhone 11, has a good price point and battery life, but the two-camera set-up is wrong. A successor should swap the ultrawide lens for a telephoto one.
PHOTO: ARMANDO BABANI/SHUTTERSTOCK
A Goldilocks phone with a zoom camera. There are essentially three iPhones: the pricey iPhone 11 Pro, the popular midtier iPhone 11 and the wallet-friendly iPhone SE. That $700-ish phone—iPhone XR, iPhone 11 and now, presumably, iPhone 12—is the perfect phone for most people, with a good price point, fantastic battery life and most of the latest features, except for one: a telephoto lens.
The current model has two cameras—wide and ultrawide—and it is the wrong pairing. Ultrawide landscape pics are cool, but an optical telephoto lens is more useful. It’s currently available only in the $1,000-and-up Pro iPhones. And if we’re going to have to socially distance for the foreseeable future, we’re going to need all the zoom we can get.
An iPhone 12 in a smaller size. It bears repeating: The basic iPhone 11 has the right price and many worthy features. But its display is a bit too large for those with smaller mitts. For me, the added bulk makes it difficult to operate with one hand or securely fit into jean pockets.
Currently, the small-handed folks have two iPhone options: Fork over $1,000 or more for the smaller iPhone Pro, or opt for the $399 budget iPhone SE and lose key camera and security features. I want a third choice: an iPhone 12 that improves on the iPhone 11 yet fits into my undersized palms.
An in-screen fingerprint sensor. We’re living in the Mask Era. Face ID is now useless in places where we need it most, like the grocery store. We’re hoping Apple takes a cue from Samsung and embeds thumb-identification tech under the screen.
The $329 entry-level iPad is a great learning tool... with a terrible front-facing camera. A serious webcam upgrade would be a boon to students stuck at home.
PHOTO: KEVIN FRAYER/GETTY IMAGES
The option to choose your charger. Ming-Chi Kuo, an analyst at TF International, predicts that Apple, to cut costs, will no longer ship power adapters or headphones with its new iPhones. So you could spend a thousand dollars on a phone that can’t be charged out of the box.
The move certainly spares the Earth of extraneous accessories. But Apple should give customers the option to forgo the extras, or add what they need at a bundled price. Maybe it is time for a new pair of white buds or one of the newer fast chargers—or maybe AirPods Pro or a big pair of Beats headphones.
An Apple Watch with longer battery life. The world’s most popular smartwatch can detect irregular heart rhythms, call emergency services and track open-water swims. But the Apple Watch lags far behind its fitness-focused and Android-compatible competitors in one key area: battery life.
The current model, the Series 5, lasts about 18 hours and needs to be recharged daily. To take advantage of the new sleep tracking capabilities, you’ll need to charge your watch in the morning, but it takes about 2.5 hours to fully power up.
Meanwhile, Samsung’s Galaxy Active2 is rated for two to three days without charging. Fitbit’s Versa 3 smartwatch can go for nearly a week or run 12 hours with continuous GPS, double what Apple Watch is capable of.

The Apple Watch could use a big battery boost. The current model, the Series 5, gets just 18 hours on a charge, compared with competitors’ dayslong capabilities.
PHOTO: BRENDAN MCDERMID/REUTERS
A Qi-compatible Apple Watch. The Watch’s proprietary magnetic charger is another battery nuisance. Newer iPhones and AirPods work with the Qi wireless standard, the kind you’ll find all over, including at Starbucks and McDonald’s. The Apple Watch needs a special, separate charger. Apple, if you can’t give us AirPower, you need to give us Qi.
A budget iPad with a Zoom-worthy front camera. The $329 iPad is Apple’s Trojan Horse into the battle for the classroom, not to mention all the battles over virtual schooling. And it would be a great learning tablet if it didn’t have such a terrible front-facing camera. That 1.2-megapixel 720p-resolution webcam could use a serious upgrade for our e-learners.
A splash-proof iPad Mini Pro. I’ll save you my spiel on why the iPad Mini is the best iPad. (So compact! So much functionality!) I just wish Apple believed in the tiny tablet’s potential, too. The current iPad Mini, refreshed in March 2019, arrived with outdated hardware, including an older chip, Touch ID and the classic thick-border iPad design.
Making the Mini water-resistant, like the iPhones, would be ideal for bathtub and beach reading. And adding iPad Pro features—Face ID, a higher-contrast screen, a magnetic strip for Apple Pencil storage and a sleeker design—would make the Mini the ultimate travel iPad.

A MacBook running Apple silicon. In June, Apple announced a big shift: Future Macs will run on custom-designed chips, replacing the Intel -based processors in today’s computers. The company’s stated gains in battery life and performance, plus the ability to run iOS apps, are behind the switch.
Apple said its first system would ship “by year’s end.” I’m hoping it will be a new MacBook Pro or Air. Then, we may finally get a Mac laptop capable of serious multitasking—with or without Chrome—that doesn’t sound like it is about to blast off into space.
Future Macs will run on custom Apple-designed chips, which the company says will give the devices gains in battery life and performance over current Macs, like this MacBook.
PHOTO: STEFAN WERMUTH/BLOOMBERG NEWS
An App Store that reflects the reality of today’s tech. The battle between the iPhone maker and developers over App Store fees is far from over. While Apple made some concessions recently, the legal fight between it and Epic Games—the company behind Fortnite—could determine the fairness of the App Store’s 30% cut of in-app purchases.
Is Apple’s rent too high? It’s all about balance. Yes, the App Store gives developers access to billions of iPhone users and the ability to make money off them—but those apps also add tremendous value to the iPhone experience.
And right now, developers are breaking their own apps to circumvent Apple’s fees and policies. Netflix can’t even tell iPhone users where to subscribe. (It’s here, by the way.)
“Do Not Track” features that actually prevent tracking. In June, Apple excited us by announcing many privacy-focused additions in iOS 14. App developers would finally have to ask users for permission before tracking them across other people’s apps and websites. This appears to give people power over how much extra data a developer can collect about them—and many would probably opt out.
It’s unsurprising that Facebook, which relies on data collection to serve personalized advertising, complained publicly. Amid that pressure, from Facebook and other publishers, Apple decided to delay the new prompt until early next year. Boo.

My hope is that Apple makes good on its promise, but I’m not holding my breath. Last year, Apple initially told developers third-party trackers in children’s apps were banned—and then softened the guidelines and eventually permitted some trackers and advertising.
And now we wait and see what happens. Stay tuned, the WSJ Tech team will be covering the news Tuesday—and in one or two more events expected before the year is out. I will be crossing my fingers, hoping to hear any—or all—of the above.

WSJ : Tall Boots For A Fall of Higher Hopes

Tall Boots For A Fall of Higher Hopes
Tough, tall boots for fall adventures, whether on horseback or in the backyard.



Sept. 13, 2020 10:00 am ET

In terms of closet essentials, a good quality pair of black boots has to rank pretty high on every person’s list. They’re one of the most versatile closet staples anyone can purchase: good for rainy days, but also one of the easiest ways to add some attitude to a snoozy outfit. They’re great investment pieces because they’re able to take a lot of wear and tear. Below, take a peek at five examples of the best boots you can get this fall. There’s a striped pair from Salvatore Ferragamo that adds a layer of complexity to your basic black. Don’t look past an option from Fendi that goes heavy on the bottoms. For some height and sleekness, you can’t go wrong with this offering from Michael Kors Collection. Versace’s offering in the category is a sporty choice that looks like it can take a beating. And then there’s Marni’s black boot that seems like it can weather anything 2020 throws at it.
Salvatore Ferragamo, $1,550, ferragamo.com
Fendi, $1,750, fendi .com
Michael Kors Collection, $995, michaelkors.com
Versace, $1,195, select Versace boutiques
Marni, $1,150, Marni boutiques