Minggu, 27 Oktober 2019

A scam targeting Americans over the phone has resulted in millions of dollars lost to hackers. Don't be the next victim. - CNN

The woman was a scammer, and Gunst was just the latest target in a growing trend that's left thousands of Americans frustrated, broke, and without a clue how to get their money back.
In the last 10 months, 140 local governments, police stations and hospitals have been held hostage by ransomware attacks
The over-the-phone scheme is a type of phishing scam.
And in the last year, a whopping 26,379 people reported being a victim of some sort of phishing scam. Together they reported nearly $50 million in losses, according to the FBI's 2018 Internet Crime Report.
While the number of reported scams increased slightly from the 25,344 phishing scams reported to the FBI in 2017, the losses skyrocketed by nearly $20 million.
They are not going away anytime soon, as scammers are getting more clever and devious in their phishing attempts. Here's how you can avoid being the next person to fall for one.

How it works

Gunst ignored the first call from the scammer -- he didn't recognize the number. But the same number called him again, and as a business owner accustomed to unknown numbers, he decided to pick up.
Gunst says the woman on the other end claimed she worked with the bank, and someone had attempted to use his card in Miami. Gunst, who lives in San Francisco, told the caller it wasn't him.
Still, having received legitimate calls from his bank regarding attempted fraud in the past, Gunst still did not suspect anything unusual.
Virtual kidnappings are rattling families across the US
Then it got weird.
After confirming that he did not use his card in Miami, Gunst says the caller told him that the transaction had been blocked, and then asked him for his member number.
Gunst then received a legitimate verification pin from the bank's regular number via text, which he promptly read back to the caller -- not realizing that it was a password reset code.
The person on the line -- a scammer -- was in. She could access his account and began to read off recent transactions that Gunst had actually made, lending a bit more credibility to the call.
Then came the next question, which immediately set off a red flag: "We now want to block the pin on your account, so you get a fraud alert when it is used again. What is your pin?"
Gunst hung up. That's a number no bank would ever ask for. He quickly called the fraud department at his bank, and began to rethink how the call went awry.
"The problem is the text should say what its purpose is," Gunst later explained to CNN of the verification pin, which he tweeted about in a widely-read thread. "'Someone is trying to reset your password. Don't give this number to everyone.' But it didn't. It was just a generic pin."
He said that was a lesson for the bank to learn from.

The 'hack' used social engineering

We asked a hacker to try and steal a CNN tech reporter's data. Here's what happened
Hackers may use what's known as social engineering to try and obtain or compromise information about you, which could then be used to gain access to something such as your bank account.
What that means is simple: they tricked you, or someone who knows you, to compromise your account.
CNN reporter Donie O'Sullivan recently agreed to allow Rachel Tobac, a cybersecurity executive and hacker who specializes in social engineering, to hack him as a means to show how a scam can work. She was able to get his home address, phone number, have his hotel points transferred over to her and even change his seat on an upcoming flight.
And she was able to do this largely by using information that he posted online on social media: an Instagram check-in at a hotel and a tweet about a piece of furniture.
How? Both the hotel and the furniture company handed his personal details to the hacker over the phone.

It's not always your fault

Companies that don't have the proper security procedures in place can often leave themselves and their customers vulnerable to a social engineering attack.
A small company could easily be tricked into giving up personal customer information over the phone if a clever hacker has just enough information to seem credible.
Small banks and companies have been known to put out member newsletters or even hold member appreciation events where it's posted on social media and people are invited to accept or decline the invitation, according to Ron Schlecht, managing partner of security firm BTB Security.
A savvy hacker could've used that information to find members of that bank and use social engineering to find information such as their home addresses and phone numbers in order to phish them.
"It's unclear at this point where this happened, but there's no doubt in my mind that they knew that I was a customer of that bank and they thoroughly understood the security procedures of that bank," Gunst says. "It was rather targeted."
While it's possible that Gunst's bank was compromised, Schlecht says that "it's more likely that they disclosed information without really knowing it was bad to do so."

Spotting the scam

There are a number of clues out there that should raise your suspicions.
"If you've been randomly selected for a big prize, vacation, or to enjoy great savings or if all of a sudden the IRS, Medicare, or Social Security Administration needs to get a hold of you for a warrant or penalty, take a deep breath and consider the legitimacy of the call," Schlecht said.
He offered a simple rule: "Very broadly, if something seems too good to be true or too bad to be true, it probably is. Chances are that you haven't entered into a drawing, specifically sought out services, or even have an idea that you've done some misdeed."
Phishing scams are common, but particularly clever phishing attempts can deceive even those who are aware of them.
Yet another company has been hit by a ransomware attack
In the moment, with the scammer on the other end putting pressure on you to verify or give up information, it's easy to make a mistake or overlook a detail or clue that may hint at a scam.
Knowing the procedures your bank or institution takes with fraud attempts can be helpful in spotting a scam, but it's not foolproof. Gunst has received multiple calls from his bank for real fraud attempts in the past, and he says that the scammer stuck to the pattern very closely. He said it was a "very clever trick."
"When I read that thread now, that's one red flag after another," Gunst says. "But it's hard to express the social engineering component of it. My guard wasn't up in the way it should've been."
The FBI warned of scammers spoofing legitimate FBI phone numbers in August, so it's clear that you truly can't trust any inbound call no matter what the caller ID says. Your best bet at staying safe would be to hang up and to call the phone number your bank or institution has listed.
"Zero trust always wins," Schlecht said. "You can't verify that they are who they say they are, so call them after the notification instead of interacting with an inbound call."

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/business/phishing-bank-scam-trnd/index.html

2019-10-27 05:06:00Z
CAIiEB9Pel4uoS4c5GxIE5Uf5tMqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU

Sabtu, 26 Oktober 2019

Microsoft's JEDI win called a gamechanger - Seeking Alpha

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

  1. Microsoft's JEDI win called a gamechanger  Seeking Alpha
  2. Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10 Billion JEDI Contract, Thwarting Amazon  The New York Times
  3. Microsoft snags hotly contested $10 billion defense contract, beating out Amazon  CNBC
  4. Pentagon Hands Microsoft $10B Cloud Computing Contract, Snubs Amazon  The Epoch Times
  5. Microsoft beats Amazon for Pentagon's $10 billion cloud computing contract  Times of India
  6. View full coverage on Google News

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3509869-microsofts-jedi-win-called-gamechanger

2019-10-26 13:13:00Z
52780418483639

Sustainable Finance Is Growing Rapidly, And So Is Investor Confusion - NPR

Investors are spending billions of dollars to align their portfolios with their personal values. But there's little agreement on what exactly qualifies — or disqualifies — an investment option from being marketed as sustainable. Above, pedestrians walk past the New York Stock Exchange on June 10. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

If you're an investor with ardent social beliefs — and you aspire to put your money where your mouth is — you're in luck. Today, on Wall Street and beyond, socially responsible investment options abound.

For those distressed by gun violence, new weapon-free funds divert dollars from firearms manufacturers and large gun retailers. If climate change is your biggest concern, there are funds that dodge investments in oil and gas giants. And for the staunchest animal advocates on the market, a Vegan Climate Index vows that investor dollars will not, under any circumstances, harm a living creature.

Increasingly, investors are taking pains to align their portfolios with their personal values, and activists are urging financial institutions to divest from companies implicated in everything from climate change and gun violence to worker exploitation. This year, 85% of individual investors surveyed indicated interest in ensuring that their money backs companies with sustainable practices, according to a Morgan Stanley poll. This is up 10 percentage points from just two years ago.

Driving this uptick has been interest among millennials: 95% signaled an interest in sustainable investment, according to the poll, with many citing their belief that their dollars have the power to alleviate poverty and slow climate change.

In response, some of the world's largest financial institutions have launched new "sustainable" investment options and adorned them with a sweeping — and according to some experts, problematic — modern label: environmental, social and governance, or ESG, investing.

Since 2015, the number of sustainable investment options has boomed, with the launch of 133 new ESG funds, according to research by Morningstar. By the end of 2018, more than 350 sustainable funds were available to investors, amounting to $161 billion worth of assets under management.

This surge comes despite a long-held view among many on Wall Street that fusing finance with ethical considerations might cost shareholders otherwise competitive returns. But now, some of the world's largest companies are not only acknowledging the importance of issues such as climate change, human rights and social inequality — but finding that doing so can help boost the bottom line.

"The world today faces unprecedented sustainability challenges, and that means that companies also face sustainability changes, ESG challenges," said Jon Hale, head of sustainability research at Morningstar. "Therefore, investors need to understand what role these issues play in a company's financial viability."

An "ambiguous field"

Still, despite the growing popularity of ESG investing, sustainable investment remains a largely "ambiguous field," according to Linda-Eling Lee, global head of the ESG research group at index giant MSCI.

That means no one can quite agree on what exactly qualifies — or disqualifies — an investment option from being marketed as sustainable. This has fueled skepticism among investors, activists and lawmakers alike regarding the legitimacy of ESG investing.

Lee said the ambiguity stems from several causes. For starters, there's a range of investment strategies underlying ESG funds, and these are often more nuanced than investors expect.

Lee said customers often assume ESG options are "purely values based" and therefore devoid of stocks tied to activities like deforestation or gun manufacturing.

This idea dates back to the divestment campaigns of the 1960s, '70s and '80s, when activists began calling on financial institutions to divest from companies with ties to activities such as apartheid in South Africa and tobacco production.

But funds that carry the ESG label don't always guarantee divestment, Lee said, because ESG isn't "necessarily aiming to be aligned with individual investors' values."

It comes back to strategy. Some funds, for example, allow customers to strictly focus their investments on a certain theme — such as climate change or diversity in corporate leadership. That can mean certain companies or industries are excluded from the fund entirely.

Other times, ethical factors may inform how the fund is created, but they don't explicitly dictate which stocks are included. In this case, Hale explained, the fund would be "tilted" toward sustainability leaders and away from sustainability "laggards" in a given industry. But that tilt doesn't automatically eliminate companies based on factors such as their carbon footprint or how well they pay workers.

Ben Cushing, a campaigner with the Sierra Club, said this means that many funds carry the sustainable label despite including stocks of companies that many investors would think "go against the spirit" of ESG investing.

For example, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, offers an array of sustainable investment options to U.S. customers. But according to a recent report by a coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, 10 of those "green" products contain over $423 million in fossil fuel stocks and $29 million in holdings tied to deforestation in the Southern Hemisphere. The report says that in this way, some investment options that are marketed as sustainable in fact directly "funnel money into the very problem many of its customers wish to avoid."

Murals painted by climate activists are seen from an office building on Montgomery Street in San Francisco on Sept. 25. Jeff Chiu/AP hide caption

toggle caption
Jeff Chiu/AP

A spokesperson for BlackRock said, "There is not one single approach to applying ESG considerations to an investment portfolio" but that the company offers funds that target "the top ESG-rated companies across all sectors, including energy."

What results, according to Hale, is a lot of investors saying, "Look, I don't get what's the big deal. You kind of sold me on this whole ESG thing, and then you give me a portfolio that looks pretty conventional."

'No widely accepted standard'

This, Cushing said, represents a natural outgrowth of the fact that "there is no widely accepted standard of what ESG means in the marketplace."

"If you're just a person looking to invest your savings and you don't want that money to go to the destruction of the planet, it's really hard to figure out what is a truly sustainable investment or not because ESG is not well defined and well regulated," Cushing said.

It's a problem that is only becoming more urgent, experts say, given the growing demand for ESG products.

One proposal, introduced this summer by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., attempts to address one aspect of the issue by requiring all publicly traded companies to report their exposure to climate-related risks, as well as how they're planning to address them, to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plan has drawn rebukes from Republicans in Congress, who say that mandating such disclosure would stifle competition and burden companies with unnecessary regulation.

Regardless of what happens in Congress, some experts say the demand for ESG investing could make more transparency unavoidable. Lee, of MSCI, expects that firms will soon have to compete for millennials' business by marketing their sustainable investment options as clearly as possible.

"What we should do, as an industry, is to make sure that that labeling is actually very clear and easy to understand as opposed to being very much in the fine print or jargon," she said.

Lee said that investing is "not unlike buying food" — customers are responsible for their portfolios and have access to information that allows them to peek "under the hood" of any ESG product they might be interested in.

Cushing said the onus should be on companies, not consumers.

The "climate crisis is deepening by the day," he said, and firms have a responsibility when it comes to shifting trillions of dollars away from fossil fuel economies and into clean energy solutions, like wind and solar power.

"At the very least, they should not be marketing funds as ESG when they contain fossil fuel companies and pipeline companies."

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/771323268/as-investors-try-to-be-more-ethical-some-find-no-escape-from-businesses-they-det

2019-10-26 10:00:00Z
CAIiENvkdKu2JtaXajt3vznyEdYqFggEKg4IACoGCAow9vBNMK3UCDCvpUk

Microsoft Beats out Amazon for Pentagon's $10 Billion Cloud Computing Contract - Gizmodo

Photo: Pool (Getty)

The Pentagon’s $10 billion deal to provide cloud computing services to the Department of Defense officially went to Microsoft Friday. The news came as an upset to Amazon, whose competing bid appeared to be the frontrunner for most of the contract’s deliberations. Throughout the yearlong process, President Donald Trump has repeatedly rebuked Amazon’s prospects, which seems in part an extenuation of his outspoken vendetta against the company and its CEO, Jeff Bezos.

According to a Washington Post report, Microsoft is now set to take over the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) project, a potentially decade-long federal cloud computing initiative that has attracted interest from some of the biggest names in tech. In addition to Microsoft and Amazon, Oracle and Google also went after the massive contract. The latter dropped out of the running last year after extensive protests made it very clear Google employees were not happy about the prospect of working for the U.S. military.

Advertisement

Though both Microsoft and Amazon were finalists for the contract, the choice seemed fairly obvious. Amazon Web Services both holds a larger market share when it comes to cloud computing—48 percent compared to Microsoft’s 15.5 percent according to the market-research firm Gartner—and has secured a higher data management certification from the military than Microsoft, the Post reported.

However, while the project remained unfinalized in July, a flowchart created by Oracle detailing an elaborate “conspiracy” at play to secure Amazon the contract somehow found its way to Trump’s desk, prompting the president to order an investigation into possible foul play. Internal inquiries found no evidence of the subterfuge Oracle described, CNN reported at the time.

But that didn’t stop Trump retweeting coverage from Fox News that nicknamed the contract the “Bezos bailout” along with other apparent displays of partiality. He frequently criticizes the Bezos-owned Washington Post as “fake news” for its less than flattering coverage of the White House as well as Bezos himself and Amazon by extension. Technically, federal acquisition laws should prevent politicians from putting their thumb on the scales in these matters. At least, they did back when Washington wasn’t constantly on fire. Who knows, these days.

All of these rebukes could be ammo for possible litigation should Amazon choose to push back against the Pentagon’s decision. An attorney with the law firm McCarter & English, Franklin Turner, told the Post:

“It’s crystal clear here that the President of the United States did not want this contract to be awarded to one of the competitors. As a result its fairly likely that we will see a number of challenges that the procurement was not conducted on a level playing field.”

Advertisement

In an announcement for the award, the Defense Department described it as a by-the-book decision, the Post reported. “The acquisition process was conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.” Furthermore, all parties “were treated fairly and evaluated consistently with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria.”

Yeah, something tells me Amazon’s not going to see it that way.

[The Washington Post]

Advertisement

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-beats-out-amazon-for-pentagons-10-billion-cl-1839372258

2019-10-26 05:52:00Z
52780418483639

Jumat, 25 Oktober 2019

Tesla starts selling made-in-China Model 3 with Autopilot for ~$50,000 - Electrek

Tesla has updated the Model 3 online configurator in China to start selling the made-in-China Model 3 Standard Range Plus with Autopilot for ~$50,000.

There’s been a lot of talk about when Tesla is actually going to start Model 3 production at Gigafctory 3 in Shanghai.

On Wednesday, the automaker confirmed that trial production of Model 3 in Shanghai has begun, but they still need to meet some more “governmental requirements”:

“We have cleared initial milestones toward our manufacturing license and are working toward finalizing the license and meeting other governmental requirements before we begin ramping production and delivery of vehicles from Shanghai.”

On Friday, Tesla updated its Model 3 online configurator for the Chinese market and it now includes the Model 3 Standard Range Plus with Autopilot as the new base option, like in other markets, however, Tesla specifies that this model is made in China:

The automaker also still notes that availability is subject to regulatory approval and delivery is not expected before the first quarter of 2020.

However, Tesla has been taking reservations with a version of the car without Autopilot over the past 6 months – meaning that it likely has a backlog to work through between now and next year.

The Model 3 Standard Range Plus with Autopilot starts at ¥355,800, which is equivalent to about $50,000.

Tesla has been promoting the vehicle today on its Chinese social media accounts (via Weibo):

That’s only about 3% less expensive than what buyers were paying for the Model 3 imported to the US, but they could get access to different incentives.

Now Tesla offers the same lineup of Model 3 in China as it does in other markets with the only difference being that the base version is made at Gigafactory 3 and the more expensive all-wheel-drive versions of the car are still made in the US.

It’s unclear how many cars Tesla plans to deliver from Gigafactory 3 this year, but the automaker aims to ramp up production to 1,000 units per week by the end of the year and quickly ramp up to 3,000 units per week next year.

Electrek’s Take

Yes, it is not a big difference in price with the imported version, but that’s not what matters.

What matters is that it is about the same price as a BMW 3 Series in China before gas savings and EV incentives.

With advantages like easier access to license plates, the made-in-China Model 3 could make a good dent in the premium sedan segment and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles in what is already the biggest market for EVs.

We will keep a close eye over the next few weeks on how well the ‘made-in-China’ Model 3 is received in the country.


Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://electrek.co/2019/10/25/tesla-starts-selling-made-in-china-model-3-with-autopilot/

2019-10-25 11:13:00Z
52780416991787

Nearly every analyst covering Amazon says buy the dip, except one - CNBC

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos tours the facility at the grand opening of the Amazon Spheres, in Seattle, Washington on January 29, 2018.

Jason Redmond | Getty

Barclays told clients it's "still early" to buy the dip on Amazon, as the e-commerce giant's period of heavy investment could hurt financials and the stock further before things get better.

"Historically it's a good idea to buy AMZN shares in the 7th-8th inning of its investment cycles, closer to where we are coming out, but unfortunately it feels like we are only in the 3rd-4th inning," said Barclays internet analyst Ross Sandler in a note to clients on Friday.

Shares of Jeff Bezos-led Amazon dropped after the company reported third-quarters earning that fell short of Wall Street's expectations, as a return to a heavy investment cycle cut into the e-commerce giant's profitability. Amazon spent over $800 million investing in faster delivery over the past few quarters and its net income dropped to $2.1 billion, down 26% from the year-ago period's $2.9 billion.

"The push to 1-Day is driving up costs and creating stress everywhere in the system from outbound shipping, forward inventory management, fulfillment and headcount, marketing, etc., all of which should persist into mid-2020," said Sandler.

AWS became another overhang. The cloud business's reported $9 billion in quarterly sales, falling slightly below analyst expectations of $9.1 billion. Operating income totaled $2.26 billion, up 9% from the year-ago period but below the $2.55 billion FactSet estimate. For the past four years, AWS has been the bulk of Amazon's operating income, so slowing growth highlighted "the shift to enterprise and longer duration contracts" said Sandler.

Although Amazon beat the Street on revenue for the third quarter, Amazon gave fourth-quarter revenue guidance in the range of $80.0 billion and $86.5 billion, far below the street's average estimate of $87.4 billion, indicating slowing growth might persist.

In contrast to Sandler, nearly every other analyst on Wall Street recommended buying the dip on Friday. UBS said it sees "any post-quarter share weakness as a good entry point."

But Barclays is ultimately bullish on Amazon. The firm has a buy rating on the stock and a $2,000 per share price target, which is lowered from $2,180 per share.

Shares of Amazon are down 6% in premarket trading on Friday.

—with reporting from CNBC's Michael Bloom.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/nearly-every-analyst-covering-amazon-says-buy-the-dip-except-one.html

2019-10-25 12:05:09Z
52780418496898

Why An Amazon-Oracle Merger Is A Very Real Possibility - Forbes

Per Trefis analysis, a merger of Amazon and Oracle could unlock significant value. While the idea may sound very ambitious, in order to keep itself at the top of the cloud technology food-chain, Oracle may be the best acquisition Amazon could ever make. We detail why Amazon could acquire Oracle, and also estimate how much a potential deal could be worth in an interactive dashboard. Our estimate is based on Oracle’s standalone value as well as its value as a part of the combined entity with Amazon. You can modify any of the key drivers to visualize the impact of changes on the potential acquisition price. Additionally, you can see more Trefis technology company data here.

Why we think Amazon can acquire Oracle

Overview of the Two Companies:

  • Amazon was possibly the first vendor to have created the public cloud ecosystem in mid-2000s, but Oracle has been in the database business for nearly 40 years.
  • The idea of Amazon Web Services was to have infrastructure that could be rent out to customers who wanted lower bills for their storage and compute requirements. Per Trefis estimates, AWS commands an enterprise value of $199 billion at an EV/EBITDA of 11x (2020 EBITDA of $18 billion).
  • Oracle was late to the game with its first generation of cloud offerings failing and the company subsequently investing heavily in development to bring to market its Gen 2 cloud. Per Trefis estimates, Oracle should have an enterprise value of $251 billion at an EV/EBITDA of 12.7x (2020 EBITDA of $20 billion).
  • AWS’s approach was creating a product and then have users adopt it. Oracle has had that user base for a long time and was unable to service the need that AWS was able to cater to. The result was AWS today commands over 40% in the public cloud market with Oracle not even in the top 5, despite Oracle running nearly 50% of the world’s databases.

Rationale #1: Customers will get the security of Gen 2’s architecture and AWS’s customer service, leading to a differentiated product versus competition

  • AWS’s early mover advantage may now be waning on account of competition in the market from Microsoft Azure (which has become the underlying fabric of Microsoft’s B2B and B2C offerings), Google Cloud (under its new chief) and IBM’s cloud offerings (post the Red Hat deal).
  • Another factor weighing against the incumbent cloud leaders is the drying up of the low hanging workloads that could have been migrated to the cloud. The remaining workloads are mostly mission critical and have high security requirements.
  • Another factor that goes against AWS in this contest are the list of data breaches that have occurred at AWS customers such as Capital One, Malido Air etc. During Oracle’s annual analyst meet, Larry Ellison was vocal about how Gen 2’s architecture could have avoided such breaches.

Rationale #2: AWS is yet to create a credible database alternative to Oracle. Bringing Oracle’s database on AWS could make the combination the de facto choice for start-ups and enterprises alike

  • Oracle has been trying to move its databases to the Oracle cloud, the company’s software growth has not been able to offset declines in its other businesses.
  • On the other hand, AWS has had a preferred partnership with VMware to bring AWS to on-premise systems (where Oracle and Microsoft have a leadership position).
  • Considering that Oracle wants customers to move to a cloud and AWS wants on-premise customers to expand into, we think Oracle and AWS represent a good complementary pair.

Based on our revenue and EBITDA forecasts for Amazon and Oracle, and our estimates for potential gains as a combined entity, we believe that there Amazon can profitably acquire Oracle for a figure that is at a substantial premium to its current market cap.

What are the risks and hurdles to a potential combination?

A merger between the two tech giants comes with its own set of risks and hurdles though, including:

1. History of rivalry:

  • AWS’s Andy Jassy and Oracle’s Larry Ellison have been embroiled in a war of words about each other’s products and operational strategies for years.
  • However, during Oracle’s 2019 analyst day event Ellison appeared to be more respectful of AWS

2. Technology stack combination considerations:

  • Oracle’s Gen 2 cloud separates the client and cloud control computers, while AWS runs a huge distributed system.
  • The cost of integrating the two system and applying Oracle’s autonomous database capabilities to AWS’s offerings could pose a technology challenge due to the size of the combined customer base and their diverse requirements.

3. Anti-competitive concerns:

  • With a share of well over 40% in the public cloud market and over 50% in the database market, the combined entity is likely to attract a lot of regulatory scrutiny in terms of how it will affect competition.

4. The sheer size of the deal:

  • We value Amazon’s AWS division at $200 billion and Oracle at $250 billion.
  • Considering Amazon’s retail business (valued at $71 billion), Amazon is the larger company
  • Also keeping Amazon’s growing presence in several nascent industries, a merger will essentially bring Oracle under AWS’s fold.
  • Amazon will have to cough up a significant premium to Oracle’s current market value in order to finalize a deal.

What’s behind Trefis? See How It’s Powering New Collaboration and What-Ifs For CFOs and Finance TeamsProduct, R&D, and Marketing Teams More Trefis Data Like our charts? Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/10/25/why-an-amazon-oracle-merger-is-a-very-real-possibility/

2019-10-25 10:12:13Z
CAIiEOfMDX0Tj8HDad3r_HOZUVYqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowrqkBMKBFMLKAAg