Cohen is a protege of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. In 2010, Cohen went on to establish technology incubator Jigsaw. His recruitment is the most recent step taken by Goldman Sachs to inject a technology focus into the bank. 

Cohen is set to lead the group, known as the Office of Applied Innovation, alongside co-chief information officer George Lee. 

“Working closely with leaders across Goldman Sachs, George and Jared will specifically identify and advance commercial opportunities for the firm that are at the intersection of a changing global marketplace, shifts in the geopolitical landscape and rapidly evolving technology,” Solomon said. 

Cohen will be joining New York-based Goldman Sachs at its senior-most rank, serving as a partner, management committee member and also as president of global affairs.

[ymal]

The US bank’s latest move makes it the first major Wall Street institution to follow through with a strict Covid-19 vaccine mandate, having announced intentions to do so back in October. 

Citigroup’s decision comes as the financial industry struggles with how to return employees to offices safely amid rapidly rising cases of the Omicron variant of the virus. Other major Wall Street banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs & Co, have told unvaccinated staff to work remotely, but have not yet gone as far as firing employees. 

So far, over 90% of Citigroup employees have complied with the mandate. While Citigroup is the first Wall Street bank to enforce such a strict vaccine mandate, other major US companies, such as Google and United Airlines, have also introduced “no jab, no job” policies. 

Apple saw $21.7 billion profit for the three-month period that ended in June, marking its best-ever fiscal third quarter. The company’s record-breaking performance was boosted by strong sales of the new iPhone 12.

Google’s parent company Alphabet has revealed second-quarter revenue of $61.8 billion and a profit exceeding $18.5 billion, a figure which stands at twice its profits for the same period last year. Google’s advertising revenues also rose 69% from last year.

Microsoft has also reported record-breaking revenues of over $46 billion for the quarter, a 21% rise compared to the same quarter last year.

As share prices have rocketed throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the collective market value of Apple, Google, Microsoft and social media giant Facebook, is now worth over a third of the entire S&P 500 index of America’s 500 largest traded companies. 

Finance ministers of the G20 economies have backed a landmark deal to prevent multinational companies from shifting profits to tax havens. The deal will introduce a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15% to deter big companies from exploring their options for the lowest tax rate. The deal will also shift how hugely successful multinationals such as Amazon and Google are taxed. Taxes for such multinational companies will come to be based partly on where they sell their products and services, as opposed to being based on the location of their headquarters. The deal marks an end to eight years of debate over the issue, with national leaders expected to give the deal the final go-ahead in October at the G20 Rome summit. 

Members of the G20 group include Britain, Germany, France, India, Japan, and Mexico. The group accounts for over 80% of global gross domestic product, 75% of global trade, and 60% of the globe’s population. While most G20 economies appear to be on board with the plan for a global tax crackdown, some countries are yet to sign the pact. These countries include Ireland, Hungary, and Estonia, and other non-European nations such as Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nigeria, Barbados, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. These nations are being encouraged to sign up to the agreement by October. 

Unsurprisingly, the market’s reaction to the grand breakthrough G7 announcement of a landmark “minimum corporate tax rate of 15%” is one such moment of noise over substance. While the announcement played brilliantly with the political classes who argued: “at last global corporate tax rates are being addressed and the largest tech firms will now pay their fair share”, does it mean corporates will suffer the ignominy of paying actual taxes?

Of course they will…not.

The share prices of the largest tech firms with the finest tuned tax-minimisation corporate structures barely yawned. The salaries of Corporate Tax Lawyers and Tax Accountants are already going North in anticipation of a feeding frenzy for their services. These professions set to reap windfall profits from the political posturing around the tax noise. They will dissect the deal’s underpinnings with a fine comb, identify the back doors, engage lobbyists to push for advantageous clauses, and get set to arbitrage every single facet of the deal – assuming it ever happens and becomes a reality.

If any European country ever receives anything close to a cheque for 15% of the profits made by a big digital tech company selling in their borders, I shall eat my hat. (I get to choose which one…) I’ve already seen a scheme from one accounting firm outlining how a major internet retailer that isn’t a river in Egypt can wriggle out because of the marginal cost calculations… something to with governments getting “the right to tax 20% of profits exceeding a 10% margin” – which sounds much less than 15% of profits the politicians blithely assure us they have secured.

But, of course, and tax deal is a win/win for everyone:

• The Sherpas of global finance say it’s a revival of “multilateralism” as nations come back together in the post-Trump era to solve “critical challenges facing the global economy”.
• The Politicians are all over it like a rash – looking forward to all that lovely US tech money to spend… while claiming to have righted a massive historical wrong in the lack of cash paid by many firms.
• Corporates will be delighted. A chance to show they support the good cause of tax equality, while behind the scenes, they keep emptying our wallets.
• National tax agencies won’t bat an eyelid. They know better than to go for the big tech firms. Such firms are heavily tooled up with the best tax lawyers. It’s much easier to go from small businesses that tend to cave quicker to HMRC threats.

On the face of it, the Irish should not be particularly happy at the loss of the jurisdictional arbitrage advantage – but even they are smiling. They know big European-tax dodgers aren’t going to haul out of Dublin any time soon. Many may decide to beef up their tax special-forces in Ireland in the expectation any tax deal is still years away from full ratification by all the members of the OECD, and that it may not happen at all… ever.

And there is no guarantee the Americans are going to accept it. Political gridlock and a Republican Party in thrall to the Beast of Mar-a-Lago means if it looks bad for America, then it hasn’t a breeze of passing. The reality is the new G7 minimum tax proposal is going to struggle to get through the slough of despond that is deepening US political gridlock. The Republicans are already parroting Trump that such a deal can’t be good for US Company revenues, therefore should be rejected.

What will the G7 tax deal mean for markets?

It’s going to be a busy time for the credit agencies, figuring out if the shock horror of corporates actually paying taxes in countries where they sell stuff, pushes a few names down a credit notch or two because paying taxes comes before paying bondholders. I’d be surprised if they find many lame ducks – but the credit agencies won’t miss the opportunity to be relevant and will no doubt start pumping out research for bond managers to fall asleep over.

In the real markets, experience equity investors know corporates will find new and better tax avoidance schemes to supersede whatever the agreement outlaws. As one wag once pointed out: “if you’re paying taxes on profits, you ain’t doing it right.”

That leaves an interesting thought: what about all the US tech firms now sitting on enormous cash piles, built up from untaxed profits channelled through corporate headquarters in nations willing to charge zero taxes – like Ireland? Retroactively taxing these untaxed gains isn’t on the agenda and will never ever happen…. Better spend the money on acquisitions, infrastructure, etc… heaven forbid paying staff better. But company spending is an economic multiplier – so it’s a good thing. Right? It will push up the stock price and allow Jeff Bezos to fund his trip to the moon…

I suspect that in the long run, all we will ever remember about the successful G7 agreement on tax was that there was an agreement… it will be rigorously enforced… and the tech giants still won’t pay very much tax.

Good tech firms rise because they create new value. 15 years ago, Amazon was a mystery – what was the point in a delivery company not making any money? Apple was building a niche with new gizmos like the iPod, while Facebook was one of many banal social media sites we could hook up on. Uber and AirBnB didn’t exist. If you wanted to watch a film before the video was released, you went to Blockbuster.

Now, these same tech firms are worth trillions – because they created entirely new markets and new revenue streams. They carry substantial growth premia: Facebook consumed its rivals while its targeted advertising becomes more sophisticated allowing it to rake in money. Apple has become the most valuable company on the planet – by creating an ecosystem of IOS addicts to buy its constantly upgraded models that haven’t innovated anything fundamentally new in 10 years. Amazon is indispensable as the place stuff comes from. Google is successfully monetising every aspect of our lives. And Netflix…Netflix is an outlier. It’s great. My family couldn’t live without it – anything is better than watching the BBC news. Although Netflix invented the concept of a streaming service, it’s now just one among many. When Disney launched its streaming service in 2019, it was able to attract more subscribers faster – because streaming demands great content. If you want great content, Disney has it in spades. Netflix invented streaming, but Disney will dominate.

Generally, the success of companies that innovate new markets underlies their initial success. It also causes hype – when every investor thinks every new exciting tech launch is going to replicate the success of Amazon or Apple, it’s wise to remember tulip markets and step back and consider. This year’s big story has been ZOOM – worth billions because everyone on the planet suddenly learnt it exists and started using videoconferencing.

Or how about the blowout record-making IPO success of Snowflake – the cloud-computing solutions provider? Snowflake competes in a very crowded market. Its rivals have been making very healthy billion-dollar profits for a number of years. One firm, 40-year old Teradata, makes $2 bn revenues from its cloud activities and is valued at $2.5 bn. But brand-new Snowflake makes $250 million revenues, runs at a loss and is worth $80 billion – despite doing essentially the same thing as profitable Teradata. But Snowflake is new – and investors seem to be believing the old market lie: “this one is different”.

Tesla is a bubble. But it's one that, thus far, hasn’t popped.

Nothing illustrates the hopes and expectations that drive tech stocks as well as Tesla. It’s a fascinating company. It has created an entirely new market in electric vehicles, and it also dominates the battery tech. It is successfully making and selling cars and setting the market’s agenda.

There are two different views on Tesla:

There is the “you don’t understand” perspective favoured by the Tesla fan-club. They have some good points. They stress Tesla is a long-term play on the future not just of cars, but everything about capacitance (batteries), personal transport and power. It’s created and taken leadership of the expanding non-ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) market. It’s got proven battery technology and it’s collected massive amounts of data that will enable to lead autonomous driving – enabling Tesla owners to run their precious cars as self-driving taxis when they aren’t using them. The Tesla fans say the traditional financial markets don’t understand what massive future value the firm has created.

The market clearly believes in Tesla. It’s worth over $400 bn dollars despite making less than $1 bn profit in the last 12 months (the first time it’s ever posted an annual profit). While most car companies trade on modest single-digit multiples, the market clearly believes in Tesla’s exceptionalism at a plus 400 multiple.

Even though it produces less than 0.5% of global auto sales, Tesla is worth 2.5 times as much as Toyota which builds over 10% of the world’s cars, each year posting healthy profits of $23 bn on 10 times multiple. The big three US auto companies make 18 million cars per annum and post profits most years.

The unbelievers say Tesla’s minuscule profits after 10 years of developing their car model means it’s just a small niche player. They say it’s too reliant on selling carbon-regulatory certificates – every car it sells is sold at a loss. Ferrari makes 23% margin on each car while Tesla loses money. Naysayers don’t believe the hype around batteries – pointing our newer, cleaner battery tech, which can charge in seconds, will make every Tesla obsolete overnight; sometime in the future. They say Tesla’s batteries, actually made by Panasonic, won’t set the industry standard. The Chinese are saying they already have million-mile batteries, and although Tesla got a Chinese factory up and running in record time, the Chinese are outselling it.

Even sceptical financial analysts accept that Tesla makes good cars, but they believe that it needs to massively increase its margin per car and increase production at least 10 times to justify a stock price even half of its current value. In short - Tesla is a bubble. But it's one that, thus far, hasn’t popped.

But it will.

What’s driven Tesla to such stratospheric values is a result of some extraordinary factors. Founder Elon Musk is regarded by fans as a far-sighted prophet of genius. To detractors, he’s an arrogant market manipulator, hypester and snake-oil purveyor. Musk attracts the hopes and dreams of retail investors who are jumping on board the Tesla party bus. Good luck to them.

The main issue Tesla fans are missing is the same thing that is going to test Netflix and a host of other overpriced tech stocks: Competition.

Every other automaker gets what Tesla is doing. So far no one is doing it better. Someday, very soon, someone is going to launch something better. It might not be anything like Tesla, or it might just be much, much less hyped.

Wall Street Journal reports that according to a source familiar with the company’s plans Google plans on adding checking accounts to its consumer offerings, essentially allowing people to bank with Google, as opposed to their traditional high street bank.

Very little information has been confirmed so far but we do know that Citigroup and the Stanford Federal Credit Union are set to run the accounts under the Google banner, but branded as the financial institutions’ names, rather than the proprietor, Google.

According to several reports, Caesar Sengupta, an executive at Google told WSJ Google does not intend to sell any customer data on the back of its advance into the consumer banking landscape. “If we can help more people do more stuff in a digital way online, it’s good for the internet and good for us,” Sengupta said.

Google is of course not the first Silicon valley giant to dip its toes in the banking game, as we saw Apple reveal plans for the Apple card this year. It has however already faced several issues in getting this project off the ground, from its relationship with Goldman Sachs, who runs the card, to scandals of sexism in its algorithms as of late. Facebook also delved into the financial landscape with its payments operation and the introduction of Libra, which has already lost the majority of its support over regulatory concerns and uncertainty in the crypto sphere.

If Google plans on stepping into the banking landscape and challenging the current status quo, which in turn is already disrupted by challenger banks and fintech start-ups, it will have to move quickly and without any hiccups. Perhaps we could see a Google bank or Bank of Google in the near future. Keep your eyes peeled.

A study by City Index revealed the financial reports of the worlds biggest brands to reveal exactly how long it took each to make their first $1 billion, as well as how fast they make a billion today.

They compared this data to how fast it would take the world's biggest brands to make the average UK salary, and the results are mind-boggling:

1. Walmart – 2.16 seconds

Industry: Retail
Total Revenue: $500,343,000,000
First Billion:18 years
Latest Billion: 0.7 days
Did you know?
While McDonald’s recently announced plans to roll out more self-service pay kiosks, Walmart revealed plans to bring more cashiers back. The move came after reports that self-service checkouts hadn’t helped operating margins and left customers unsatisfied.

2. Apple – 4.32 seconds

Industry: Tech
Total Revenue: $265,595,000,000
First Billion: 14 years
Latest Billion: 1.4 days
Did you know?
In August 2018, Apple became the first public company in the world to hit the trillion-dollar mark after share prices rose to $207.05, sending the tech giant to all-new heights. This landmark moment came just 42 years after the company was founded.

3. Amazon – 6.48 seconds

Industry: Retail
Total Revenue: $177,866,000,000
First Billion: 5 years
Latest Billion: 2.1 days
Did you know?
In June 2018, Investopedia named America ‘the United States of Amazon’ as the company’s Prime memberships tipped over the 100m mark. Fast forward to September of the same year and the retail kings became the second $1 trillion company, just weeks after Apple became the first to hit this impressive milestone.

4. Walgreens - 8.64 seconds

Industry: Retail
Total Revenue: $131,537,000,000
First Billion: 110 years
Latest Billion: 2.8 days
Did you know?
Walgreens recently revealed it had spent $500 million on building, testing, and implementing new IT systems for its US stores, with plans to spend a further $500 million. This news came as the brand faced competition after CVS Heath bought out the country’s third largest health insurer and Amazon announced plans to enter the pharmacy market

5. Google - 10.19 seconds

Industry: Tech
Total Revenue: $110,855,000,000
First Billion: 5 years
Latest Billion: 3.3 days
Did you know?
Google was fined $2.7 billion for breaching European Union antitrust rules in June 2017 after it was found to be using its search engine to steer users to its own shopping platform. Luckily for the tech giants, this figure was dwarfed by its $110 billion revenue in the same year.

6. Microsoft - 10.19 seconds

Industry: Tech
Total Revenue: $110,360,000,000
First Billion: 15 years
Latest Billion: 3.3 days
Did you know?
In October 2018, Microsoft announced it had acquired coding platform GitHub for $7.5bn, expanding the brand’s developer tool and services offering. The deal is rumoured to have made GitHub’s three founders billionaires.

7. Target - 15.75 seconds

Industry: Retail
Total Revenue: $71,879,000,000
First Billion: 87 years
Latest Billion: 5.1 days
Did you know?
In a bid to fend off competition from Amazon and bring its business model up to date, Target purchased same-day delivery service Shipt in 2017 for $550 million. Target is hoping that its $99 annual Shipt membership ($20 cheaper than Amazon Prime) and commitment to delivering a wider range of products will see it eat into Amazon’s profits throughout 2019.

8. Walt Disney - 18.83 seconds

Industry: Entertainment
Total Revenue: $59,434,000,000
First Billion: 69 years
Latest Billion: 6.1 days
Did you know?
The bidding war to takeover 21st Century Fox isn’t the first time Disney and Comcast have come to blows. In 2004, Disney curbed Comcast’s unsolicited bid to take it over, which caused a huge rift between Disney CEO Bob Iger and Comcast CEO Brian L. Roberts.

9. Facebook – 27.79 seconds

Industry: Tech
Total Revenue: $40,653,000,000
First Billion: 6 years
Latest Billion: 9 days
Did you know?
Facebook shares were down 7% in March 2018 after a data scandal dominated the headlines around the world, equating to an estimated loss of $40 billion. Chief Strategy Officer of GBH Insights, Daniel Ives, commented that the social media channel could lose $5 billion in annual revenue if it failed to assure its users and government agencies.

10. Time Warner Inc – 36.12 seconds

Industry: Entertainment
Total Revenue: $31,271,000,000
First Billion: 7 years
Latest Billion: 11.7 days
Did you know?
With around 26,000 employees worldwide, Time Warner’s impressive entertainment property portfolio includes Warner Bros., HBO, New Line, and Cartoon Network. Blockbusters such as Wonder Woman, Dunkirk, and It contributed to the company’s $31.3 billion revenue in 2017.

“Potential for growth in today’s market is significantly greater than before”

Fiona Cincotta, a Senior Market Analyst at www.cityindex.co.uk, said: “The markets have changed dramatically over the past 30 years, not just in composition, but also how quickly a firm can grow. From the data, the earlier the business was founded, the longer it took to reach its first billion in revenue.  

“While firms founded at the turn of the last century, such as Walgreens or Target, have taken over 100 years to hit the $1 billion mark, more recently founded companies such as Facebook or Amazon have hit the milestone in next to no time. Potential for growth in today’s market is significantly greater than before. 

“It also comes as no surprise that while tech firms and retailers are among the quickest companies to hit $1 billion in revenue, but traditional retailers are the slowest. This is yet another piece of evidence highlighting the struggles that more traditional retailers on the high street are up against as shopper’s habits move away from bricks and mortar stores to online shopping and technology."

(Source: City Index)

Online research from Equifax reveals over half (51%) of Brits under 45 years old would be interested in banking products or services from technology giants like Apple, Amazon or Google. Of those, 45% said that products or services like loans, credit cards or current account from these technology companies would only appeal to them if they offered better value than their existing bank.

Across all age groups, the level of interest in banking products from leading technology firms falls to 40%, with over a quarter (27%) of Brits stating they would rather use their existing bank as they’re more familiar with them.

Jake Ranson, Banking and Financial Institution expert and CMO at Equifax Ltd, said, said: “The recent announcement that Apple is joining forces with Goldman Sachs to launch a consumer credit card highlights how tech companies plan to shake up the banking industry, creating products and services to compete against the big high street banking names as well as newer digital entrants.

“Although a sense of brand familiarity pins many people to their current bank, there’s an appetite for new products and a desire for alternatives that can offer something genuinely different. The tech giants have a loyal brand following in their own right, if they can combine this with a competitive product offering we’ll see an interesting shift in dynamics as the fight to attract customers heats up.”

(Source: Equifax)

Facebook, Google, and now also Twitter have all moved to ban cryptocurrency-based adverts on their sites. This means that any ads pertaining to ICO platforms, bitcoin wallets, token sales, crypto-trading etc. will be banned.

Much of this spouts from illicit ads and fraudulent activities. Therefore, there will be some exceptions and policies are still being put together. Analysts currently believe dips in market values and trading of crypto are being caused by the regulatory scrutiny and ban on ads.

This week Finance Monthly hears from BrokerNotes CEO Marcus Taylor on what this means for the crypto market as a whole: “The cryptocurrency market is taking a battering at the moment. It’s being viewed by consumers and big businesses as a wild west environment riddled with risk and instability. Google’s move to ban cryptocurrency ads, following Facebook’s decision last month, will light a fire under the industry to introduce the regulation needed to make the crypto market one consumers can trust in the long term.

“But what about the short-term impact? A recent report shows that 58% of online cryptocurrency traders are millennials and it seems logical that removing advertising from social media channels like YouTube and Facebook should have a major impact on their overall interest in the market. The reality will be different though.

“Although 18-30s represent a huge chunk of the market, 52% identify as experienced traders. The ban will simply serve to protect the ill-informed making bad decisions and bring market stability, rather than put a stranglehold on cryptocurrency trading.”

Apple makes an astonishing amount of money but this presents an interesting challenge for the company and raises questions about what they should do with it all.

Richard Meirion-Williams, Head of Financial Services at BJSS discusses how banks can counteract the threat provided by Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon (GAFA).

It wasn’t long ago that bank branches used to hold personal, trusted relationships with their local customers. However, since the rise of digital banking and the decline of the branch, relationships between bank provider and customer have weakened. While the financial institutions are under pressure to keep up with digital transformation, at the same time demand for a personalised customer experience is high on the banking agenda.

Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, the major technology power players, known as GAFA, are transforming the digital banking landscape as we know it. With a huge pool of customer data at their fingertips, GAFA’s move into financial services is simply a natural extension of their current offering. When you consider the vast amount of data that these tech giants can leverage across social media, mobile, customer purchase information and mapping data, GAFA has the ability to provide a highly personalised financial service experience.

For banks to remain central in the lives of consumers, they must provide consistent and fulfilling customer experiences across the digital and physical environment. It’s not just about having access to customers credit or debit accounts, but also a greater/wider insight into their individual customers.

But time is of the essence. Amazon, Apple, Google, Intuit and PayPal have already formed a coalition called Financial Innovation Now to enhance innovation in the financial industry to satisfy the customer need for convenience. The key for traditional financial providers is to act quickly and respond to emerging digital disruptors like GAFA. Banks need to focus on evolving their business models and developing new revenue streams.

4 steps to challenge the GAFA force

Client on-boarding: Banks need to maintain their competitive differentiation and make products available immediately. Recently banks have focused on improving the front-end process. But what about the back-end? By digitising the full spectrum banks can reap the rewards of full end-to-end capabilities. This will mean customers opening an account can get started up in minutes after completing an online application. Making changes to the digital process will also help improve the processes which co-exist in physical branches.

Personalised services and partnering for suppliers and customers: Customer centricity should be at the heart of every business. Banks need to create personalised services to deliver their products using an agile approach. This can be achieved either through the bank or a third-party.

To meet consumer demand for convenience and choice, banks should also look to offer customers “lifestyle” services that can adapt in real-time to fulfil the everyday needs of the banking user. Not only will this help multiply customer interactions but will also help generate new revenue streams.

Leverage Consumers data: Extrapolate customer insights from the vast amount of structured and unstructured customer data using Artificial Intelligence, NLP and cognitive computing. The customer financial information can be leveraged to create market intelligence and to generate new revenue streams.

Create an ecosystem: Banks should take advantage of open environments and create new ecosystems. This could be offering external or white-labelling banking services through open APIs and new partnership models with innovative fintechs or working alongside GAFA. Banks need to develop new products and services on distributed ledgers for transactional access on a continual basis and receive data and events from third parties like Amazon or Apple who can distribute and integrate their products in a broader business environment.

This approach will help counter the GAFA threat and create greater cross and upselling opportunities, along with building customer acquisition, retention and cost optimisation, transforming the cost-to-income ratio from the current average of 63% to hopefully less than 50%*. It is critical for banks to think innovatively and act quickly, otherwise they will become a victim of the GAFA dominance which has already infiltrated other industries.

*Calculation made based on reviewing the published accounts of a number of banks.