FTC

bmcalvert1s

The FTC will eat them alive if they try to acquire more

Ironic3000

FTC hates this one trick!!! (Being an absolute juggernaut in your industry)

ixvst01

None of those acquisitions would get past the FTC.

Expired-Option

Bad news from more DOJ, FTC, and SEC scrutiny So 

BlueCollar-Bachelor

First, inflation happens. I'm not going to comment on MSFT. I'm not an investor and don't know enough about the company. As for Amazon doubling in value. I expect in the next 3-5 years. That isn't even including inflation. First AWS is growth is still rising. Costs for new warehousing will substantially drop. Costs for transportation/delivery is dropping. Constant increase in product demand will continually rise slowly. A couple of my own predictions. They will slowly push FedEx and Chewie towards bankruptcy. Likely more companies than that. The governments (FTC) stated response to large companies failing. Will be to push mergers to prevent job losses. As employment competition and preventing job loss are now their stated #1 priority. Above market competition. This new stance should be beneficial to Amazon as where it will be hindrance to other tech companies FedEx with their fleet. Chewie, with all of their brand new massive warehouses on a scale reasonable to Amazon. Both would be excellent candidates for Merger with Amazon. Should they lose market and begin to fail. I believe Chewie is already heading in that direction.

MoonBasic

This "lean"ness should have happened a long time ago. One of the most visible effects of zero interest rates paired with COVID. Euphoric investors piling money in thinking "people will want to exercise at home forever and that number will keep growing forever!" Meanwhile the technology is really not that differentiated from the competition. A frugal individual could buy a stationary bike, a fitbit, and get classes from a variety of apps for magnitudes cheaper. This company is a digital gym. It has instructors, classes, and some exclusive workout equipment. In no way should it ever been priced like some kind of huge tech company. You hook it up to your Apple watch and you get some nifty data. Nothing that Schwinn/Nordictrac/lifefitness can't do for cheaper. The brand is still very strong though. Their instructors are like celebrities who have their own individual followings as well. It's bougie and still seen as a status symbol, and no doubt they have some super loyal members giving them recurring subscription dollars. But there are only so many bikes to sell to so many people. Interested to see if this can be a turnaround story in the long term - but overall a case study in sustainable growth vs chasing trends. We'll see if this restructure helps them in the long term or is really just gearing them up for an acquisition by Apple/Amazon/Lulu? who knows (if the FTC would even allow it, lol).

xhaseone

FTC announced they are challenging patents which would put generics on the market by 2032 or so years

infinit9

I wish the FTC and SEC would look into who is actually buying this stock and where the money is coming from.

devereaux

The FTC is going after Novo Nordisk for all their junk patents on Ozempic. With that said, Moderna sucks. Maybe there are just better options out there in pharma

devereaux

The FTC already going after Novo Nordisk on their Ozempic-related junk patents means that the government isn't going to fuck around on trying to reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenses

devereaux

The FTC is going after all the junk patents that big pharma has been using to keep prices high for so long

devereaux

Hilarious that the FTC is going hard after like 10 major pharma companies for their junk patents intended to keep prices high and block competition. The FTC is even going after Novo Nordisk on their Ozempic patents

InsatiableNeeds

Well timed alongside what the FTC is doing with non-competes.

fman258

Hey FTC, this guy.

WWTSound

So-fi a business built around student loans with a president forgiving student loans. Then sued the Biden administration. A company that’s settled claims by the FTC about making false claims. Spending $$ on naming a stadium. Taking money from Qatar Investment Authority. A SPAC that was like all SPACs. Pivoted to making investment loan and “cloud” loans. Oh and a former CEO ousted by sexual harassment allegations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoFi Sounds great. 🤦‍♂️ But what do I know.

motoevgen

It's an irony. Even if you had leveraged "to the tits" that would not make retirement money. Only if FTC shows interest in your way of coming up with brilliant ideas and your great great uncle from your Japanese grandma lineage turns out to be somehow involved in this movement. That would probably give you a bunch of new friends, free meals and a new interest in self preservation strategies. Don't forget a rent free 1 star hotel with security personal.

bearded_mischief

This is a potential FTC antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen, 50% market share is a prosecutors wet dream. I’m not convinced Tesla will even be around then.

bevo_expat

Read up on the announcement from the FTC. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes There are separate laws that protect sensitive or trade secret company information. Workers can are perfectly capable of staying within the same industry and not stealing or transferring sensitive information. If they do they’ll likely be sued.

Temporary-Sun-7575

when FTX was shitripping hte fan i listened to a jon stewart podcast and it happened to be covering this...at least for the FTC & their (mostly corrupt) dealings with FTC, they had people who are responsible for commodities in like the exports of farming like beef,. pork, corn, vermont syrup, etc,, and they stuck that person in the officiating chair of the agency for regulating crypto coin (like theyve itemized it as a commodity in that sense and not something with allow actual economic rigor to their probing eyes).. That was teh craziest part of learning about the whole thing regarding FYX imo

BoneSpurz

Maybe. But the recent FTC rulings regarding non competes and net neutrality would never come into fruition from a republican administration. Our system is built one rule at a time. Things like this matter. The false equivalency that is so common works to the benefit of those truly corrupt. There’s still a difference between 30% corrupt and 70%. We should at minimum punish the 70% with a larger goal of reducing the 30%

albertwh

FTC would never have let them buy Twitter, would have been bad for the world that

animositisomina35

Google has $108 billion in cash and $13 billion in long-term debt  $70 billion in buybacks are coming up in the next year and now a dividend since they have no idea what to do with all that money. The FTC won't let them acquire companies and they stopped hiring engineers who weren't adding anything to the company.

frankslastdoughnut

Diamond Back Energy is holding their shareholder vote tomorrow to approve Endeavor acquisition. Monday marks the end of the 30 day FTC review period to allow the merger to go through. Easy money is 5/17/2024 210 calls. It's the only chain with decent liquidity. Endeavors assets are fuckin astounding. Old man just wanted to cash out but he still controls 39% of the joint company after the merger. EASY fucking money. got 11k riding on those calls. Watch it jump Monday afternoon. already rising.

OzwanKanoz

The ‘irrationality’ stems from hedge funds that are manipulating the market. Remember the FTC ruling that would require hedge funds to report their holdings, now tied up in litigation because they (hedge fund) claim it would reveal their ‘strategy’? Who was it that summarized that argument with “If I can’t cheat, I can’t win”?

ExAnteGr

I took the risk before the FTC's decision, when the price was $43.21. Now I am contemplating if I should buy more to average down the price...

gnocchicotti

FTC ain't gonna let that happen. Maybe DJT buys it

Kezo30

FTC bans non competes! Does this mean IWM will pop?

bozoputer

OK hold up cowboy 1. they have 9 B in debt 2. They lease 2/3rds of their aircraft (in fact they sell their planes then lease them back to get cash to operate) 3. The FTC has made it clear that there will be no buyouts - they need to restructure their enormous debt in Ch11, which means equity will likely get wiped out. So with all this info, one can only conclude that the stock is a screaming buy. Im in.

anothercountrymouse

Hey now, be fair, she once wrote a scatching article in the Yale Journal about how tech firms are monopolies too. It instantly qualified her to be FTC chair, we must all bow to her incredible intellect

FlyersTime

BREAKING: FTC bans noncompete agreements

need-coffee-34

FTC just pretty much completely banned non-competes, wowza

itsdeloveli27xh

The FTC sued to stop Tapestry from buying Capri, hitting pause on a big deal in luxury fashion. It could have combined six brands, boosting competition against European names.

pindoocaet

The FTC's move to block the acquisition reflects concerns about consolidating power in the luxury retail sector. It's a reminder of the regulatory scrutiny faced by large mergers and acquisitions. While Tapestry's CEO saw potential in the deal for global expansion, the delay in U.S. approval highlights the complexities of navigating regulatory hurdles. Both Tapestry and Capri face challenges in adapting to shifting consumer preferences, with Tapestry's focus on fashion and loyalty standing out as a strategic approach. However, the diverging stock performance suggests that investors may be cautious about the potential impact of the deal on Tapestry's growth prospects.

Sea_Thanks_4627

It all depends who’s the president they elect the head of the FTC. Trump years he elected very pro business ftc officials so of course any went

DarkNight6727

>I actually wished they were this strict with acquisitions consistently This is because of Lina Khan, if Trump wins the white house, Lina Khan would be removed and every merger would go through again since FTC would become toothless once again.

lipmanz

FTC won’t even let Coach buy Michael Kors, I’m doubling my HA puts tomorrow

hermanhermanherman

You’re confusing cases that go through to a trial with any brought through the courts and settled. Nvidia Your initial comment is 100% wrong. Also the writers of that opinion piece are being deceptive as well because she did not lose every case brought via litigation, as the FTC has won using the courts to prevent 17 mergers. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/16/tech/lina-khan-risk-takers

jlee9355

>Two and a half years into Khan’s tenure, the FTC has lost every single merger challenge it has brought through litigation across both federal and administrative court without even a single win in litigation in cases as varied as Microsoft’s [acquisition](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/technology/microsoft-activision-deal-ftc.html) of Activision Blizzard, Meta’s [acquisition](https://www.axios.com/2023/02/24/ftc-meta-within-case-dismissed) of Within, and Illumina’s [acquisition](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/09/administrative-law-judge-dismisses-ftcs-challenge-illuminas-proposed-acquisition-cancer-detection) of [Grail](https://fortune.com/company/grail/), to name just a few. [https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/the-ftcs-antitrust-overreach-is-hurting-us-competitiveness-and-destroying-value](https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/the-ftcs-antitrust-overreach-is-hurting-us-competitiveness-and-destroying-value)

hermanhermanherman

Why do people just make things up? The FTC blocked the Nvidia/ARM deal a few years back. In fact she is has blocked 17 mergers through lawsuits

jlee9355

The FTC under Lina Kahn has lost every single merger challenge it has brought through court.

Underfitted

yes because they are both competitors in social media whos primary revenue source is digital ads. MSFT already bought one of the biggest social media companies and is top 5 in digital ads. Any move to further monopolise that space will be met by the FTC/DOJ.

OzzieWiz

FTC is taking a look at Pelosi; she dumped a chunk of change into NVDA and pulled out in just in time; Price crashed - -$200 by FRIDAY. Not the 1st time she had MARTHA STEWART insider secrets for trading 042024

NervousPervis

I mean it will get really complicated. It will be tied up in the courts for a while and then ByteDance will need to decide if they want to sell the entire company or break off the US business. Breaking it off comes with its own complications related to the algorithm and relationship to ByteDance. I don’t know what the valuation is in either case. Probably close to $100B at least. I think Walmart and Oracle were part of the brokered deal years ago, but I doubt they will be involved. And I don’t think the FTC will want one of the large tech companies (Meta, Google, Microsoft) taking them over for antitrust reasons. I just don’t see a scenario where ByteDance abandons the US as a market for TikTok so a sale seems far more likely than a ban to me.

brokenaglets

> sell it in heaps as big as he can get away with, which will hit the price for the stockholders who just had their shares diluted Strangely, I don't think he'd do that and I wouldn't call Musk tight on funds either. His companies might be but prefucking up that's actually by design. Everything he runs is ran on bare bone expenses and employees that take some form of salary in the sense that they feel like they're doing something positive. Also, he's the richest man in the world and could get a line of credit literally anywhere. You can look at past data to how announcements from Tesla affected doge and btc both leading up to and afterwards. It seems obvious that Musk is the force driving those prices but they're unregulated. He can't do the same thing with tesla stocks. That's FTC territory and he's already had to deal with them in the past.

McKoijion

Lmao, now the FTC wants to block the Michael Kors and Coach merger deal because they would have an illegal monopoly on bags to hold things? 

MotoTrojan

Solid option. My main gripe with VT is that for US based taxable investors, you do not get the FTC (foreign tax credit) like you would if you held VTI/VXUS. Personally I recommend using AVGE (or AVGV if you are okay with all-value) for single ticker, globally diversified, tax-efficient (ETF-of-ETF structure does get the FTC) with a modest tilt to size/value/profitability factors. AVGE is 70/30 US/ex, AVGV is 60/40 and all value.

Jinncawni

I was noticing that too. And my interpretation is hedges don't see Walmart as a risk, so they keep their bags. Due to the seasons, I anticipate their demand rising given the data. Though, I am cautious of FTC and their want to know if retailers are artificially inflating products. I'd wager they'll find they have to to comply with other regulatory requirement impositions they face that the 'tech' era of business haven't had to deal until recently.

Tangentkoala

It will definitely be investigated and fined by the FTC. Lower interest rates mean less money investing in banks. So it's the opposite of your thought process.

ThinkingOfTheOldDays

RSI is 14, Consensus EPS CAGR into EOY 2026 of 13%, forward p/e is \~16 vs. an expected forward p/e of \~26 (2x EPS growth), the stock is down 16.1% on the year in a generally bullish uptrend. healthcare is generally regarded as a recession pivot, has no exposure to international risk, and very little competition imo. downsides are that negotations with gov reduced payout rate vs 2023 (to my knowledge, unsure what % of revenue that covers), antitrust regulatory inquiry by FTC, ongoing fallout from cyber breach (which I imagine they won't fuck up again for a while, a good thing), and expectations of politician jawboning into the election, and rising medical care side costs due to wage & cost input inflation.

88crypto

it would be awesome for us, but money draining for Amazon, imo. Makes no sense after all the cost cuts moves they've been doing. In addition to that - all the headache with FTC they'll have to go through just to bleed money

aiorion

In August 2023, Tapestry (TPR / owner of Coach, Kate Spade / Stuart Weitzman) announced their proposed acquisition of Capri Holdings (CPRI / owner of Michael Kors, Versace, Jimmy Choo) Why does this trade so poorly given $57 acquisition price by Tapestry? At $42, CPRI has 35% unlevered upside to acquisition price. EU will likely decide by 4/15 which seems likely to go through given (1) Tapestry’s limited Europe presence (2) significantly lower combined market share in Europe to its large competitors (LVMH/Richemont/Kering/Hermes).. There is no indication that the EU would pursue a breakup of those luxury conglomerates so unlikely to rule adversely in this merger. Why wouldn’t the US FTC approve the deal? FTC closed door meeting was removed from site and there are several articles/research with supportive opinions from antitrust attorneys. How does this harm consumers? There were additional reports that Bates White was hired to consult on blocking this deal, but there are no sign they are hired for this deal as they have no meaningful relevant experience on luxury goods / handbags… Merger agreement allows for regulatory approval process to stretch into 2025. Even if they received adverse opposition from the FTC, why wouldn’t they win in court? Again, how does this merger harm US consumers? Meanwhile Tapestry has completed issuance of the debt and received the cash required to complete the acquisition. All executive statements around earnings call infer no major road bumps and if there was new news on where the FTC was leaning, wouldn’t either company need to disclose in an 8K (if negative) or it’d leak? What am I missing?

Herban_Myth

FTC?

Euro347

These numbers will go down when they break up Instagram and whats app. The FTC has a strong case.

Euro347

These numbers will go down when they break up Instagram and whats app. The FTC has a strong case.

Previous_Lock_8772

Your analysis brings up several critical points about Meta's current state and its challenges ahead. The litigation issues you've mentioned are indeed significant concerns for Meta. The FTC's move to tighten privacy settlements, particularly concerning minors' data and facial recognition technology, alongside efforts to dismantle Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, could indeed be a massive blow to the company's operations and public perception. Such regulatory pressures, coupled with the ongoing lawsuit from Twitter, underscore the legal hurdles Meta faces, which are not only financially burdensome but could also restrict its future business strategies and product offerings. The competition aspect, especially from TikTok, cannot be overstated. TikTok's explosive growth among the younger demographics represents a pivotal shift in social media consumption patterns, highlighting Meta's struggle to innovate and keep pace with emerging platforms. TikTok's ability to captivate and engage younger audiences, potentially at the expense of Meta's user base, is a testament to the dynamic and rapidly evolving nature of social media landscapes. The forthcoming TikTok app that aims to compete directly with Instagram and WhatsApp further intensifies this competitive threat, suggesting a significant shift in user preferences and platform loyalty. Regarding AI and the metaverse, your skepticism seems warranted given the enormous investment these ventures require, with uncertain returns. Meta's foray into designing its own AI chips and its metaverse ambitions indicate a search for new revenue streams and user engagement models. However, whether these investments will pay off remains to be seen, especially in a market that's increasingly wary of privacy concerns and is being courted by more nimble competitors. Lastly, the point about the dividend strategy is an interesting one. In a climate where investors are increasingly looking for stable returns amidst uncertainty, Meta's attempt to attract investors through dividends might not be as appealing compared to the more traditional and possibly safer investments like treasury bonds, especially considering the company's current challenges. In sum, while Meta has been a dominant force in the social media sphere, the array of challenges you've outlined—ranging from regulatory pressures and legal battles to stiff competition and strategic missteps—paints a picture of a company at a crossroads. The path forward will require not just navigating these immediate hurdles but also fundamentally rethinking its value proposition in an era where user preferences and the competitive landscape are shifting more rapidly than ever.

KeyCold7216

You're completely ignoring the biggest risk. The FTC is cracking down on "gig" type companies not paying their "contractors". The only reason they aren't completely out of business is because they pay their drivers almost nothing. The prices are also insane now, it's like $20 for a meal from mcdonalds after you add in the service fees, increased restaurant prices for being on the app in the first place, tips, and delivery fees.

istockusername

You’re making the same mistake that I used to make with Meta. No user and advertiser cares about all the legal or data scrutiny. If the FTC would split up Meta, that would actually be a net positive for investors. The sum of the parts is a lot more worth than what we currently see. TikTok is a fair competitor but yet still 30% of the teens between 14 and 19 use Instagram (compared to 35% TikTok) https://mms.businesswire.com/media/20240409532694/en/2092783/1/TSWT_Spring24_Infographic_4-8-24.pdf?download=1 Tiktok is more like entertainment app where you scroll through content that is made random people. It’s vastly different to a social network like Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp where you mainly get in contact with people you know. Google has already failed to create a Social network platform it’s not easy to do that. Your weakest arguments are about political ads and AI. Meta has with Llama an open source LLM which I can see getting the same route as Android. Not every company or entity wants to build their own LLM or spend money on OpenAi or Microsoft so it’s legit alternative. Within Meta the AI will be used to optimize their ads and can be monetized to advertisers. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on political advertising. Just take a look at the development of where money is spent https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/midterm-moolah-tv-stations-cash-in-on-primary-season-1235153514/amp/

ndwillia

FTC most likely stops Amazon before china stops their exports, lmao

daytradingguy

He was sued because the FTC took issues with some wording in his advertising- that is all. Like a lot of things in government- a scam to shake him down for money. If he was fraudulent, YouTube would have shut him down and he would not be able to operate at all.

hankchipotle

I feel like it’s definitely a gamble, the ruling is going to lead to a price swing one way or the other. Long term I’m good with holding PECO and KR, but it may be a bumpy ride. Not sure if the FTC would take on a case that it has a chance of losing.

hankchipotle

Yeah I definitely can see both sides. This quote stood out to me: “Together, they would control around 13% of the U.S. grocery market; Walmart now controls 22%.” Even if they merge, they are still well below Walmart numbers. My biggest hesitancy is whether the FTC would take this on if they had any doubt that they would lose.

PuzzleheadedOffer749

i havent really read into this but the solid reasons behind why the FTC opposes the merger make sense but on the other hand, the answers that kroger provides to ease the worries of the FTC/shoppers are great. [Why could a Kroger-Albertsons merger be bad for customers? | AP News](https://apnews.com/article/kroger-albertsons-merger-federal-trade-commission-2fda44d9d8b82ef20d6c7e7cffb2ccc3)

No-Understanding9064

FTC girl is gonna be all over that like degens on 0dtes. Prob a good short

PortageLakes

Did you get in touch with FTC/SEC? If so, what was the experience like?

canobeano

Why aren't the SEC, FTC, and FEC investigating this entire enterprise and stopping it in its tracks?

UnhappyStorage9828

FTC, please take this subreddit away from me

the_potato_smuggler

Although it's not impossible, I would be quite surprised if Zyns were banned/ faced harsh government regulation. Camel snus pouches have been around since 2006 and their marketing is, reasonably, no more or less appealing to kids than Zyns. The reason I picked Camel as an example is because the US government came down on them HARD in 1997, forcing them to stop their advertisement campaign of "Joe Camel", as it was too effective at targeting kids. For reference, the FTC's main arguing point was a study known as "Trinkets and Trash: Joe Camel in Contemporary American Culture" where they surveyed kids aged 3-6 and found that almost as many kids could both recognize Joe Camel and associate him with cigarettes; in comparison to Mickey Mouse. Tl;dr Camel is our case study for tobacco+government regulation. They've been allowed to sell snus pouches (with actual tobacco) for almost 2 decades. Zyn will probably be fine, but nobody can be sure.

NotDrewBrees

SWN stock is currently trading at a 2% discount to CHK. An FTC announcement that it won’t intervene should close that gap. But those shares are going to be exchanged for CHK shares at closing, so not sure if your SWN leaps will get exchanged as well. I would’ve done this using the CHK shares. What sucks about this combined entity is that their entire business platform essentially has to be put on hold until: 1) The Permian Basin slows natural gas production 2) LNG terminals come online sooner than 2025. Neither of these options are happening any time soon, so a 31% run up by this coming January is unlikely, barring a major cold snap that drains our domestic gas inventory, or an LNG terminal starts operation sooner than expected. The Permian’s gas production has *grown* over the past few years at a faster clip than oil has because of the different completion methods and acreage exploited. Permian producers have to pay pipelines to take the gas off their hands rather than sell it. These days, Chesapeake makes bigger headlines by *shrinking* production rather than growing it. The only saving grace might be an incoming Trump admin announcement that loosens ESG standards placed on E&P firms. Those firms have to keep their standards high by refusing to flare (burn off) worthless natural gas. If those ESG requirements went away, the Permian would be burning methane all over the place. So the planet would continue to heat up, but your leaps would more likely print

N3RD_01

You teach nothing. You rake in hundreds of dollars from desperate people. Thank God your fake paper trades are all documented with your website and discord. Enjoy your FTC lawsuit.

UsuallylurknotToday

Apple could’ve done that for FTC related reasons. App marketplace, bank card, music and media, news, hardware that holds majority market share over essential tech, etc etc etc and then layer the most advanced driving tech on top of that portfolio technology? Trust bust overnight. They’ll still find a way to make money off of what they pursued, but they won’t be the ones to bring it to market.

FarrisAT

FTC says welcome back.

MFitz24

Have you not been paying attention to the FTC for the last 3 years? They've been incredibly active.

AverageAndNotJoe

The 50% number represents what portion of Home Depot’s business comes from Pros, not a representation of the market itself. I don’t think this acquisition will have an issue being approved by FTC. There are a lot of smaller and regional distributors of building materials for contractors.

margincall-mario

they own 50% of the pro market and they think regulators wont care if they add more concentration to that... I dont think the FTC will ike this but they are also pretty much useless.

Free_Management2894

The FTC won over 30 of the shots over the last few years. You just mostly hear about the ones they don't win.

Better-Suit6572

Not to split hairs but this is a Garland DOJ lawsuit. Is there a possibility the FTC joins?

Dismal_Storage

Exactly. The head of the FTC said force to close parts of their business. It won't be broken up. It will be partially destroyed.

hab365

NVDA predictions for end of week and end of April? FTC didn’t sustainably move it past its previous ATH so maybe we’ll have to wait till earnings hype to get close to $1,000?

iveseensomethings82

Next year we will see DJT vs FTC in court

Arkansasmyundies

The prevailing philosophy of European courts has been protect other businesses (European competitors). The prevailing philosophy of US courts has been to protect consumers. DoJ is making European like claims in a US court. Khan from the FTC has been as well, and hasn’t been particularly successful so far. We shall see.

Celodurismo

Honestly Tesla should've been utterly destroyed in court by the FTC for calling it full self driving. Shame there are zero consumer protections in this country.

AllShortTheRedditIPO

Maybe, but this is public domain now: analysts see right through those garbage accounting maneuvers that are clearly just intended to eek into profitability. The FTC investigation, the partial ownership by the CCP (TenCent), the election (scrutiny that all media and social media face for potential interference from foreign entities), NSFW subreddits, powertripping mods, etc. The list of potential downers is long, so be careful my friend!

mogambuu

Great job FTC

EatBaconDaily

FTC is just tryna give us a discount on AAPL, yet you guys are mad

MotoTrojan

Not great in taxable since you won’t get the foreign tax credit.  If you want 1 ticker global stocks I’d use AVGE which will get the FTC, and tilts modestly to size, value, and profitability. 70/30 US/ex. 

DavidRainsbergerII

Of all the companies to sue for monopoly control. Sure Apple may be in some sort of monopoly power, but have they looked at anything else in the country. 4 companies own all of the food production, 3 telecom companies, I’m sure there are a myriad of other examples. How about instead of suing we stop accepting the FTC being asleep at the wheel.

SirLeaf

That's a question which has several long answers. The current FTC chair has answered it before, and it could be argued that her answer is the reason she got the job as FTC chair. Short answer(s): \- Amazon does lower prices for consumers \- For much of their existence, they haven't really profited much (which indicates they aren't abusing any alleged monopoly power) \- Amazon doesn't have that much power over any particular product, and market power/product market are pretty big prefatory questions for getting scrutinized by the antitrust authorities. \- Chinese e-commerce platforms have so much market power that Amazon looks insignificant. Long answer: [https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805\_zuvfyyeh.pdf](https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf)

skychief99

Apex IS in fact a scam. I have 2 funded accounts with Apex as of a few months back, and my strategy, just like in my real account funded with my own real money I've been trading for 7 years is to establish a position with micros at different levels and to add/subtract accordingly. Have been successful doing so for years. One of my Apex "funded" accounts is now up $6,700 and recently decided to request a $2,000 payout on that funded account and got denied due to "averaging into positions". No longer going to bother with them and am sending records of my experience with Apex to the several financial media outlets and to the FTC.

DisneyPandora

There’s a big difference between the DOJ and FTC

Ghost_Pains

If it was a PR stunt he would’ve had the FTC throw out another one of those useless crap cases. DOJ’s bar for this stuff is much higher.

andybmcc

Same thing still applies. If you have no income and 0% cap gains, then the FTC just doesn't have anything to offset. Foreign taxes would still be withheld, though.

bonelish-us

One explanation is that the break-up value of these companies (Google, for example) is more than the original company, so the threat of FTC action sends the stock up.

Better-Suit6572

This is pretty much a complete misrepresentation of antitrust law. The FTC under Khan would love nothing more than to take down as many powerful entities as possible. The reason they don't is because the jurisprudence is not on their side and they are already losing most of the cases they try. If you think judges are deciding against the FTC and DOJ because of lobbying, I have a tin foil hat for you. Your theory about the relevant market monopoly being the iOS platform has already been litigated and Apple won: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic\_Games\_v.\_Apple](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple)

triplevanos

MSFT went through 3 main regulators for Blizzard, wouldn’t call it bullying. The FTC is still trying to unwind that acquisition. There has been a revitalization of antitrust regulation across the western world, and everyone is at risk

LegacyAngel

Biden hasn't said anything, and the FTC isn't involved in this lawsuit.

Affectionate-Tax9885

folks dumping AAPL because of the FTC suit: how is this at all surprising?

95Daphne

Think it's been the FTC on Meta and Amazon's tail, not the DoJ. Supposedly, the DoJ will be suing Google, but it hasn't been filed yet. It's probably why it's acting very heavy here.

davewashere

It was all connected to an original FTC inquiry in 1990. The DOJ took up the investigation and settled with Microsoft in 1994, and at that point Microsoft agreed not to tie Microsoft products to the sale of Microsoft operating systems. The issue with IE came about because Microsoft believed it could get away with considering it a "feature" of Windows and not a standalone product. Keep in mind that while Microsoft was giving away IE as a feature of the OS competing browsers like Netscape Navigator were being sold as installable software for a retail price of $49 (adjusted for inflation that's about $100 today). While consumers may have appreciated getting their browser for "free," they were also paying $210 retail for Windows 95 and certainly some of the browser development cost went in to that OS price.

BayesBestFriend

I mean, FTC should've sued them over imessage ages ago. "Hey, what if we locked our customers out of the full suite of messaging features they paid for unless they're texting someone who also bought one of our devices?" - totally not anti consumer behavior The funniest part is they have such a grip on the us consumer market that this blatantly anti consumer bullshit is seen positively, and manufacturers like Samsung that use RCS messaging (which allows 99% of the same features and is manufacturer agnostic) are seen as somehow being "behind" for supporting open standards.

Luka77GOATic

To be fair she is busy with FTC vs Meta and FTC vs Amazon as the big statement case’s of her time as head of the FTC. The Department of Justice is going after Google and Apple.