Netflix (NFLX) Offering Possible 63.93% Return Over the Next 15 Calendar Days

Netflix's most recent trend suggests a bullish bias. One trading opportunity on Netflix is a Bull Put Spread using a strike $265.00 short put and a strike $260.00 long put offers a potential 63.93% return on risk over the next 15 calendar days. Maximum profit would be generated if the Bull Put Spread were to expire worthless, which would occur if the stock were above $265.00 by expiration. The full premium credit of $1.95 would be kept by the premium seller. The risk of $3.05 would be incurred if the stock dropped below the $260.00 long put strike price.

The 5-day moving average is moving up which suggests that the short-term momentum for Netflix is bullish and the probability of a rise in share price is higher if the stock starts trending.

The 20-day moving average is moving up which suggests that the medium-term momentum for Netflix is bullish.

The RSI indicator is at 37.14 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 Netflix

Huawei Phones Had Bootleg Access to Google Apps. Not Anymore
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:31:29 +0000
(Bloomberg) — One of Huawei Technologies Co.’s biggest trade war headaches has just gotten worse, as an unofficial workaround to the Trump administration ban on using Google apps and services has been quashed.Security researcher John Wu published an illuminating post Tuesday that explained how users of Huawei’s Mate 30 Pro were able to manually download and install Google apps, despite a U.S. blacklisting that prohibits the Chinese company from using American components and software. The process allowed the Mate 30 Pro (along with the basic Mate 30) to run popular apps like Google Maps and Gmail that otherwise would not be permitted.In the wake of Wu’s revelations, the Mate 30 devices lost their clearance to manually install Android apps, as reported by a number of smartphone experts. Only Google is able to make that kind of change through what’s known as its SafetyNet anti-abuse check.“Although this ‘backdoor’ requires user interaction to be enabled, the installer app, which is signed with a special certificate from Huawei, was granted privileges nowhere to be found on standard Android systems,” Wu wrote on Medium.Google declined to comment for this story.An easy-to-use app enabling the installation of Google apps and services on the Mate 30 Pro, called LZPlay, had emerged alongside the device’s release, however it has disappeared after Wu’s posting. The researcher said in his findings that “it is pretty obvious that Huawei is well aware of this ‘LZPlay’ app, and explicitly allows its existence.”Huawei said in an emailed statement it has had no involvement with LZPlay.Huawei’s New Android Phone Lacks Luster Without Google AppsEffectively, the change makes sure that the U.S. ban on Google services for the Mate 30 Pro is ironclad — and many of the users outside of China who might have obtained or imported the device will now have only the bare Android-based Huawei user experience.At the heart of Huawei’s problems is the Google Play Store, a system-level app that’s part of Google’s licensed bundle, which opens access to the full panoply of Android applications. With it on board, an Android device can more effectively compete with Apple Inc.’s iPhone and App Store, equipped with globally popular apps like YouTube, Instagram, Netflix and Spotify. Without it, no matter how great its specs and performance, an Android device is a tough sell for U.S. or European customers. The U.S. trade ban has been damaging to Huawei because it undercuts the company’s ability to compete in the premium smartphone market in Europe, which had been one of its growth drivers.Huawei doesn’t have the same challenge in its native China because the government already bans most Google apps and services on all smartphones. Instead, Chinese users rely on Tencent Holdings Ltd.’s WeChat as the do-it-all super-app, plus a diversity of other sources for apps, games and entertainment, an ecosystem that’s developed in Google’s absence.With the latest blow to the Mate 30 Pro, Huawei’s prospects for global smartphone sales dim even further.(Updates with Huawei’s response in the 7th paragraph)To contact the reporter on this story: Vlad Savov in Tokyo at vsavov5@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Edwin Chan at echan273@bloomberg.net, Peter Elstrom, Colum MurphyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Sony's PlayStation Now Needs More Than a Price Cut
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 05:29:18 +0000
(Bloomberg Opinion) — Sony Corp. has halved the price of its PlayStation Now subscription games service. Competition from console rival Nintendo Co. as well as new offerings from Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Apple Inc. are the obvious reasons.In addition, though, PlayStation Now failed to live up to its potential. At $19.99 per month,(1)the product was way overpriced. After four years, Sony has just 700,000 paid subscribers. That’s less than 1% of the 96.8 million PlayStation 4 units the company sold by the end of March.As Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft Corp. enjoy loyalty and ongoing revenue streams from subscribing services for games, both Apple and Google enjoy a clear advantage in something far more valuable: attention.What these companies are really competing for isn’t share of the games market but consumer time. A minute watching Netflix or swiping Tinder is a minute not spent playing GTA or Super Mario Kart. In that respect, Google and Apple are both able to grab user attention multiple times per day thanks to their iOS and Android smartphones. Even Nintendo’s handheld Switch can’t compete.Complicating the matter for Now is Sony’s own rival offering,: PlayStation Plus, which goes for $9.99 per month. Now is a streaming service like those provided by Netflix Inc. or Spotify Technology SA, while Plus is more of a community that allows online multiplayer games, offers just two free PS4 titles per month, and provides some other benefits.By cutting Now to $9.99 per month, Sony’s gross margins and average selling price on that service will suffer. Yet the unit economics mean that longer-term revenue and operating profit in this division can expand. By my reckoning, Sony should be able to hit 1.5 million paid Now members by the end of September 2020; if not, then I would consider PlayStation Now a failed product that needs to be reassessed.As proof, we can look at Plus. It offers a lesser games catalog than Now, albeit with other compelling features, but had 36.4 million subscribers at the end of March – that’s 50 times more than Now. Price is a major factor in users’ purchase of a subscription, according to Nielsen Co.’s Superdata. So with that hurdle lowered, Now ought to be attractive enough to get the same level of attention.Yet if loyal consumers want both access to the deepest catalog of games, and interactive features and other benefits, they shouldn’t be forced to shell out twice. Instead of milking customers, Sony would be better served by either folding Now and Plus into one service or offering a steep discount to have both.This isn’t just out of fairness to customers, but a matter of survival. Nintendo’s Switch Online is just $3.99 while Microsoft has Xbox Game Pass at $9.99. Apple’s Arcade is $4.99, and Google’s Stadia costs $9.99. By asking for double its nearest rival, Sony is throwing away the advantage it enjoys by having a superior product for the sake of a few dollars more. That’s reminiscent of its failures with Memory Stick storage cards and BluRay DVDs, mistakes it ought not to repeat.With five big names now offering games subscriptions, it’s clear that the business model is evolving beyond single-unit sales. By selling all-you-can-eat packages, Netflix and Spotify schooled Apple at a time when the iPhone maker was still charging per song and per movie.Sony can also learn from Netflix and Home Box Office Inc. that offering competitive set-price packages doesn’t mean you need to forgo blockbuster titles. In fact, Sony’s access to the highest-quality games is the moat that rivals will struggle to cross.The move toward games subscriptions will be good for the entire industry by bringing in more total revenue. That also makes it Sony’s battle to lose.(1) It's discounted for longer-term subscriptions.To contact the author of this story: Tim Culpan at tculpan1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick McDowell at pmcdowell10@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tim Culpan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. He previously covered technology for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

FCC’s Gutting of Obama-Era U.S. Net Neutrality Rules Upheld
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 18:13:40 +0000
(Bloomberg) — A U.S. appeals court upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to gut Obama-era “net neutrality” rules, handing a victory to broadband providers and a loss to companies that rely on the internet to reach consumers.The court in a 3-0 decision ratified the FCC’s 2017 reversal of the earlier rules, even as the judges eased the path for states to issue their own rules.The decision assures more struggles over net neutrality, a policy of treating web traffic equally that has moved from tech jargon to cultural touchstone, with TV personalities such as John Oliver jumping into the debate.The FCC claimed a win. Its Republican majority led by an appointee of President Donald Trump in 2017 voted to kill rules that required broadband providers such as Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all web traffic equally.“Today’s decision is a victory for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open internet,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement. “The court affirmed the FCC’s decision to repeal 1930s utility-style regulation of the internet imposed by the prior administration.”Net-neutrality supporters seized on a part of the ruling that will permit states to come up with their own internet regulations.“It is clear that the fight over net neutrality is just beginning,” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, an attorney for challengers to the FCC rule, said in an email. “The FCC can try to fix its mistakes, but the court made it clear that the commission cannot block states from passing their own net neutrality statutes and issuing executive orders.”Tuesday’s ruling is a win for the broadband industry and a setback for companies that rely on the internet for distributing their content, including Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and the likes of Netflix Inc. and EBay Inc. They had feared that internet service providers could slow their content to favor business partners.“The court got it right,” Jonathan Spalter, president of the USTelecom trade group with members including AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc., said in an emailed statement. “The FCC’s 2017 order restored the smarter, more nimble, pro-consumer and bipartisan policy framework.”NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, was “gratified” with the ruling, Michael Powell, president of the trade group, said in an emailed statement. Members of the group include Comcast, one of the largest U.S. broadband providers.Video GamesThe Internet Association will “continue to fight for nationwide, strong, enforceable net neutrality protections,” Michael Beckerman, president of the trade group with members including Google, Facebook, Twitter Inc., and Uber Technologies Inc., said in an emailed statement.“This ruling fails to ensure a fair and open internet for video game players and all internet users,” Stanley Pierre-Louis, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said in an email. Pierre-Louis pointed out that the ruling “opens the door to state action.”The FCC and broadband providers may defeat state broadband regulation later, in this case or in related lawsuits, Matthew Schettenhelm, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst, said in a note.Judges in Tuesday’s decision indicated they were loath to set the communications industry, and the nation, on a different regulatory course yet again. The rules took effect last year.“We decline to yet again flick the on-off switch” of heavier regulation, the court said in its opinion.Critics said the new regulatory regime adopted under Pai invited predatory behavior, while broadband providers said competition would prevent abuses. Opponents of the new rules were the web software developer Mozilla Corp., the streaming video service Vimeo and a coalition of governments including New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia and Santa Clara County, California.At issue was whether Pai correctly decided to treat broadband internet as a lightly-regulated information service, subject only to Federal Trade Commission consumer protection-style oversight. Two years earlier, the agency’s prior leadership declared broadband was a form of telecommunications.The panel was comprised of Obama appointees Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, and Senior Judge Stephen Williams, a Ronald Reagan-nominee and the lone judge who voted to strike down “net neutrality” as part of a prior panel in 2016.The judges issued one unified opinion, unsigned by any one of them, accompanied by three separate ones, where they elaborated on their concerns and the reasons for their conclusions.Millett in a concurring opinion said she sided with the FCC with “substantial reservation” and was bound by a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that gave the agency discretion to classify cable modem connections.“I am deeply concerned that the result is unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service,” Millett wrote. She and Wilkins said either the Supreme Court or Congress need to take up the issue.Williams dissented on the part of the ruling that allows states to set policy. He said that the internet can’t be divided into state markets, and that state actions “would frustrate an agency’s authorized policy.”The judges told the FCC to reconsider portions of its decision about implications of its rule for public safety, the regulation of attachments to telephone poles, and concerns about telecommunications subsidy programs.Both sides said they want Congress to step in. So far lawmakers have been unable to agree, and there are few indications legislation might succeed soon.(Updates with reaction beginning in 10th paragraph.)\–With assistance from Susan Decker.To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Harris in federal court in Washington at aharris16@bloomberg.net;Todd Shields in Washington at tshields3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at jmorgan97@bloomberg.net, ;David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, Elizabeth WassermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Mark Cuban Owns Almost $1B Of Amazon Stock, Calls It The ‘Best Startup In The World'
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 17:16:51 +0000
Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban told Fox Business on Monday that Amazon.com, Inc (NASDAQ: AMZN) is his largest stock holding. In a lengthy interview Cuban said he owns “close to a billion dollars” in Amazon shares. “To me, Amazon’s the best startup in the world,” Cuban said.

Why a Trump impeachment would be amazing news for the stock market
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 15:23:47 +0000
Why investors would view the impeachment of President Trump favorably.

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.