Amazon (AMZN) Offering Possible 72.41% Return Over the Next 27 Calendar Days

Amazon's most recent trend suggests a bearish bias. One trading opportunity on Amazon is a Bear Call Spread using a strike $1737.50 short call and a strike $1742.50 long call offers a potential 72.41% return on risk over the next 27 calendar days. Maximum profit would be generated if the Bear Call Spread were to expire worthless, which would occur if the stock were below $1737.50 by expiration. The full premium credit of $2.10 would be kept by the premium seller. The risk of $2.90 would be incurred if the stock rose above the $1742.50 long call strike price.

The 5-day moving average is moving down which suggests that the short-term momentum for Amazon is bearish and the probability of a decline in share price is higher if the stock starts trending.

The 20-day moving average is moving down which suggests that the medium-term momentum for Amazon is bearish.

The RSI indicator is at 27.39 level which suggests that the stock is neither overbought nor oversold at this time.

To learn how to execute such a strategy while accounting for risk and reward in the context of smart portfolio management, and see how to trade live with a successful professional trader, view more here


LATEST NEWS for Amazon

Defining Atlanta: 10 numbers comparing Atlanta, Nashville
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:45:00 +0000
Atlanta and Nashville are almost identical when it comes to attracting young adults to their metro regions over a period from 2012 to 2017, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

Amazon Suit Against Pentagon Cloud Contract Seen as Uphill Fight
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:00:00 +0000
(Bloomberg) — Amazon.com Inc. will likely argue that meddling by President Donald Trump cost the company a cloud-computing contract worth as much as $10 billion as it seeks to overturn a Pentagon decision to award the work to arch-rival Microsoft Corp.Yet Amazon faces an uphill climb in basing its challenge on those grounds, as legal requirements to successfully appeal a contract award on claims of political interference are high. To prevail, losing bidders must show the agency made its decision as a result of bias — rather than on the merits of the companies’ proposals, according to procurement experts.“There is not much of a burden of proof on what did the president say,” said David Berteau, president of Professional Services Council, a trade group that represents federal contractors. “The question the Court will look into is what did DoD do based on what the president said?”For Amazon, the fight isn’t just about a single Pentagon contract but its ability to defend its expertise in the competitive federal contracting world — and the right to say its cloud services are safe and advanced enough to serve even the most complex and risk-averse government clients.The court challenge — the second involving the cloud bid — also means the Pentagon will likely have to delay starting a technology program the Defense Department has called critical to its modernization. Oracle Corp. is also appealing a July ruling from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that dismissed its legal challenge to the cloud contract.Amazon said it filed a notice on Nov. 8 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that it plans to formally protest its loss of the Pentagon’s Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure or JEDI cloud contract. Amazon could seek to delay the start of the contract while it pursues its case.“It’s critical for our country that the government and its elected leaders administer procurements objectively and in a manner that is free from political influence,” Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener said in a statement announcing the company’s decision to file a complaint. “Numerous aspects of the JEDI evaluation process contained clear deficiencies, errors, and unmistakable bias — and it’s important that these matters be examined and rectified.”In July, President Trump stunned lawmakers and technology companies when he openly questioned whether the JEDI contract was being competitively bid, citing complaints from Microsoft, Oracle Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. Trump has long criticized Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on everything from the shipping rates his company pays the U.S. Postal Service to his personal ownership of what Trump calls “the Amazon Washington Post.”It’s not enough for Amazon to allege that Pentagon employees were aware of the president’s opinion on the contract, said Charles Tiefer, a procurement law professor at the University of Baltimore Law School. The company will have to show the Defense Department took his perspective into consideration when they evaluated bids.“There is a well-developed doctrine in the Court of Federal Claims that a contract award can be challenged for bias, but it’s a difficult showing for Amazon to make,” said Tiefer. “The requirements to show bias are very high.”A new book by Guy Snodgrass, a speechwriter to former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, alleges that Trump, in the summer of 2018, told Mattis to “screw Amazon” and lock it out of the bid. Mattis didn’t do what Trump asked, Snodgrass wrote. Mattis has criticized the book, but hasn’t commented on the allegation concerning Amazon.The Pentagon JEDI cloud project is intended to modernize the Defense Department’s technology systems and speed up real-time sharing of information across the military. The contract is worth as much as $10 billion over ten years and could offer the winner a bigger foothold in the burgeoning federal cloud market.While no law prohibits a president from weighing in on a contract, federal agencies must follow strict rules about what they can and can’t consider when making an award decision.Agencies must choose vendors based on the criteria outlined in their requests for proposals to avoid inviting a successful legal challenge, according to procurement experts. In the case of JEDI, Pentagon officials said they would pick a winner based on companies’ security strategy, proposed price and execution timeline and their ability to offer portable cloud services to the war fighter among other factors.A study conducted by Rand Corp. found that the U.S Court of Federal claims sustained just 9% of contract protests against the Defense Department from 2008 through 2016. The Government Accountability Office sustained 2.6% of contract protests during the same time period, though a much larger percentage of challenges led the agency to make changes to the procurement decision or terms, according to the study.Amazon was widely seen as the leading contender for the deal because it is the commercial market leader and already won a 2013 cloud deal from the Central Intelligence Agency, paving the way for the company to earn the highest federal cloud security authorizations.The White House requested a briefing on the cloud contract after Fox News aired a sharply critical segment by Tucker Carlson in June. The Defense Department prepared a detailed document pushing back on the Fox program in preparation for the briefing, Bloomberg has reported.Dana Deasy, the Pentagon’s chief information officer, said during his confirmation hearing in late October that to the best of his knowledge, no one from the White House reached out to any members of the JEDI cloud contract selection team. The Pentagon will likely continue to argue in court that political influence played no role in its decision to choose Microsoft.To help make its case, Amazon could examine whether there are any differences between how the companies’ bids were evaluated by lower level technical staff on the Pentagon’s JEDI selection team and what Pentagon officials with closer access to the White House decided, said Frank Murray Jr., a procurement lawyer and partner at Foley & Lardner LLP. If top Pentagon officials chose Microsoft over the recommendation of their technical employees, that would be significant piece of evidence for Amazon, Murray said.Amazon could seek documents and interviews with Pentagon staff as part of its legal challenge. Amazon could also argue that the Pentagon erred in the way that it rated the bids from the two companies on metrics such as security, price and technical capabilities.“The nuts and bolts of the case are going to be: how were the proposals evaluated? And were they reasonable?” Murray said.If Amazon’s legal challenge is successful, the judge could force the Defense Department to reevaluate the companies’ proposals or even open up the bidding process again, procurement experts said.To contact the reporter on this story: Naomi Nix in Washington at nnix1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sara Forden at sforden@bloomberg.net, Larry LiebertFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Alibaba Is Taking the Cloud Battle to Amazon
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:47:54 +0000
China's e-commerce giant Alibaba is set to surpass Google and occupy third place in the race to be the world's leader in cloud computing.

Big Cap Stock Pickers Lose Big Amid $250 Billion in Outflows
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:35:15 +0000
Actively-managed large cap funds have been laggards during the bull market, and frustrated investors are pulling their money out.

Meituan CEO’s Net Worth Poised to Top $7 Billion as Shares Surge
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 03:49:04 +0000
(Bloomberg) — The founder of China food-delivery giant Meituan Dianping is having a very good year.As his business has grown, Chief Executive Officer Wang Xing’s net worth doubled this year through Thursday’s close to $6.7 billion, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index. That figure is likely to top $7 billion as Meituan’s stock surged Friday, following a strong earnings report.Shares climbed as much as 13%, the most intraday since its IPO last year, and traded 8% higher at 11:45 a.m. Meituan reported quarterly revenue that increased 44% to 27.5 billion yuan ($3.9 billion) in the three months ended September, compared with the 26 billion yuan average of analysts’ estimates. Net income hit 1.33 billion yuan, including gains from investments, while analysts projected a 502 million yuan loss.Backed by Tencent Holdings Ltd., Meituan is investing heavily in a plethora of online services from food delivery to travel, competing directly against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. CEO Wang is trying to sustain a robust pace of growth by expanding into newer arenas such as ride-hailing, restaurant management and online groceries. That ambitious expansion has helped Meituan overtake the likes of Baidu Inc. to become China’s third largest publicly traded tech company.On a conference call after the earnings, executives said they will continue to invest in new areas like hotel booking and grocery services. The goal is to create a one-stop app for services, similar to the platforms Alibaba and Amazon.com Inc. have built for products.What Bloomberg Intelligence SaysMeituan is seizing order share across segments. Growth in hotel room nights outpaced the industry and Meituan wants to expand into high-end facilities next year.\- Vey-Sern Ling and Tiffany Tam, analystsClick here for the research.While Meituan has tightened its belt with less-profitable areas such as bike-sharing, it’s spending at a rapid clip to fend off Alibaba’s Ele.me in meal delivery and Fliggy in travel, an enormous outlay that’s compressing margins. Sustaining growth has also become a stiffer challenge as Chinese economic growth threatens to slide beneath 6%. Longer-term, Wang envisions a super-app modeled on Tencent’s own WeChat, extending a raft of everyday services such as payments to an increasingly wealthy populace.Meituan’s stock has more than doubled in 2019 — easily outpacing Alibaba and Tencent — as investors bet on its ability to safeguard its share of China’s fastest-growing internet services.\–With assistance from Pei Yi Mak and Venus Feng.To contact the reporter on this story: Zheping Huang in Hong Kong at zhuang245@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Peter Elstrom at pelstrom@bloomberg.net, Edwin ChanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts

 

MarketTamer is not an investment advisor and is not registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Further, owners, employees, agents or representatives of MarketTamer are not acting as investment advisors and might not be registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory.


This company makes no representations or warranties concerning the products, practices or procedures of any company or entity mentioned or recommended in this email, and makes no representations or warranties concerning said company or entity’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the SEC or the CFTC. The sender of this email may receive a portion of the proceeds from the sale of any products or services offered by a company or entity mentioned or recommended in this email. The recipient of this email assumes responsibility for conducting its own due diligence on the aforementioned company or entity and assumes full responsibility, and releases the sender from liability, for any purchase or order made from any company or entity mentioned or recommended in this email.


The content on any of MarketTamer websites, products or communication is for educational purposes only. Nothing in its products, services, or communications shall be construed as a solicitation and/or recommendation to buy or sell a security. Trading stocks, options and other securities involves risk. The risk of loss in trading securities can be substantial. The risk involved with trading stocks, options and other securities is not suitable for all investors. Prior to buying or selling an option, an investor must evaluate his/her own personal financial situation and consider all relevant risk factors. See: Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options. The www.MarketTamer.com educational training program and software services are provided to improve financial understanding.


The information presented in this site is not intended to be used as the sole basis of any investment decisions, nor should it be construed as advice designed to meet the investment needs of any particular investor. Nothing in our research constitutes legal, accounting or tax advice or individually tailored investment advice. Our research is prepared for general circulation and has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive or obtain access to it. Our research is based on sources that we believe to be reliable. However, we do not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of our research, the completeness, or correctness or make any guarantee or other promise as to any results that may be obtained from using our research. To the maximum extent permitted by law, neither we, any of our affiliates, nor any other person, shall have any liability whatsoever to any person for any loss or expense, whether direct, indirect, consequential, incidental or otherwise, arising from or relating in any way to any use of or reliance on our research or the information contained therein. Some discussions contain forward looking statements which are based on current expectations and differences can be expected. All of our research, including the estimates, opinions and information contained therein, reflects our judgment as of the publication or other dissemination date of the research and is subject to change without notice. Further, we expressly disclaim any responsibility to update such research. Investing involves substantial risk. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results, and a loss of original capital may occur. No one receiving or accessing our research should make any investment decision without first consulting his or her own personal financial advisor and conducting his or her own research and due diligence, including carefully reviewing any applicable prospectuses, press releases, reports and other public filings of the issuer of any securities being considered. None of the information presented should be construed as an offer to sell or buy any particular security. As always, use your best judgment when investing.