The stock market habitually ignores fundamentals completely when the mood is at either the greed or fear extreme. And Alibaba (NYSE:BABA) and Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) as simply the latest examples as you can see from the following chart. Not that long ago (around 2021), both stocks had been trading at immense valuation premiums. To wit, BABA demanded a P/S multiple of around 10x and AMZN around 5.0x. Then the bubbles burst quickly and now BABA is trading only at 1.73x P/S ratio and AMZN at 1.97x, both at only a fraction of the market average of 4.61x represented by the NASDAQ 100 index.
Thus, it is the thesis of this article to examine if the above valuation correction is overdone (an almost 6x P/S ratio contraction for BABA and almost 3x contraction for AMZN). And you will see that my conclusion is yes.
It is true that both businesses have faced strong headwinds (some common and some unique to each of them) as you can clearly see from the following chart. BABA suffered a large decline in EBIT profit margin since 2021 both due to the macroeconomic slowdown of China's economy and also the tightened regulations. Its EBIT margin dropped from an average of 24% to a bottom of around 0% in the first half of 2022. Its margin has recovered to a healthy 13.5% in the most latest quarter, but still a far cry from its long-term average (only about ½ of its long-term average). The picture of AMZN is quite similar, although less dramatic. Its EBIT margin has been in a nosedive since ~2021 too. Its EBIT margin has been consistently above its average of 5.25% (except for two quarters) before 2021. However, it dropped to below 0% in the first of 2022. Its margin has recovered to a positive 2.8% in the most latest quarter, but still only ½ of its long-term average.
However, in the remainder of this article, I will argue that despite such profitability headwinds, the overvaluation correction is overblown. The current valuations in both stocks have ignored the growth curve from the secular e-commerce penetration and also their various high-growth initiatives. Their current profitability headwinds could persist but are ultimately temporary the way I see things. And furthermore, I see the price volatilities created thy such headwinds to be entry opportunities for long-term investors. To wit, for AMZN, near-term headwinds such as shipping congestion and inflation persisting could cause its prices to be stuck in a $90~$95 trading range, providing a reasonable entry point. For Alibaba, its current valuation is already very attractive, and China's ongoing protest and Zero COVID policy could create an even better entry point for long-term holdings.
First, let me start with what's comparable and what's not between these two businesses. I view BABA and AMZN as the bellwether stocks in the e-commerce sector - that is why this article picked them to gain a more vantage view of the current status of the e-commerce sector. And both stocks are comparable, or even identical, in many of their operation details and initiatives (e.g., both are leaders in the cloud space).
However, the elephant in the room is that BABA faces a "China risk" that AMZN does not. I won't dive too much into the "China risk". It is a broad and vague concept. Different readers and authors seem to interpret it differently. As the title of this article suggests, I will focus more on business fundamentals rather than geopolitics.
For the "China risk", I would refer readers to Ray Dalio and his writing. In particular, I highly recommend his book, The Changing World Order (a few quotes are provided below from this book). I read all of his books (not that many anyway) and follow his writings closely. And I view him as a leading expert on both China and the U.S., and especially their interplays.
- "I urge those of you who have not spent considerable time in China to look past the caricatured pictures that are often painted by biased parties and rid yourself of any stereotypes you might have that are based on what you thought you knew about the old "communist China" - because they are wrong."
- "Triangulate whatever you are hearing or memorizing with people who have spent a lot of time in China working with Chinese people."
- "As an aside, I think the widespread medium distortions and the blind and the near-violent loyalties that stand in the way of the thoughtful exploration of our different perspectives are a frightening sign of our times."
As detailed in my earlier writings, for "new-economy" stocks like BABA and AMZN, a key business fundamental aspect I always check is their R&D: especially the sustainability and yield.
Therefore, let's first see how sustainable BABA and AMZN have been funding their new R&D efforts. The chart below displays their R&D expenditures in the past 10 years as a fraction of their total sales. As you can see, both BABA and AMZN have been consistently and also aggressively investing in R&D. In AMZN's case, it has been only spending a minimal amount on R&D before 2016 (less than 1% of its revenues). But after 2016, it cranked up its R&D substantially to a level of 12.0% of its total sales and has maintained it at this level since then. In BABA's case, it has been spending on average 10.0% of total revenues on R&D efforts systematically.
After establishing their R&D sustainability, let's examine how effective their R&D processes have been. The examination in this article follows a method detailed in my earlier article. The essential idea is to apply Buffett's $1 test on R&D expenditures. More specifically:
- The purpose of any corporate R&D is obviously to generate profit. Therefore, this analysis quantifies the yield by taking the ratio between profit and R&D expenditures. We used the operating cash flow as the measure of profit.
- Also, most R&D investments do not produce any results in the same year. They typically have a lifetime of a few years. Therefore, this analysis assumes a 3-year average investment cycle for both BABA and AMZN's R&D expenses. As a result, we used the 3-year moving average of operating cash flow to represent this 3-year cycle.
And the results are shown in the chart below for BABA and AMZN. As you can see, their R&D yields are different qualitatively, with BABA's yielding about $3.31 per $1 of R&D expenses and AMZN yielding only about $0.90. However, note that despite the qualitative differences, both BABA and AMZN have been demonstrating consistency in their R&D yield, signaling an efficient and sustainable process.
Also, to put things under a broader perspective, the next chart compares BABA and AMZN against the rest of the FAAMG stocks. As seen, the FAAMG stocks as a group feature an average R&D yield of $2.94. And BABA's $3.13 is only behind Apple and Facebook (or Meta Platforms).
We've examined their profitability above by the EBIT margin. Here, I will use ROCE (return on capital employed) as the main metric to take a closer look. As detailed in my blog article, ROCE is the most fundamental metric because:
ROCE considers the return of capital ACTUALLY employed and therefore provides insight into how much additional capital a business needs to invest to earn a given extra amount of income - a key to estimating the long-term growth rate. Because when we think as long-term business owners, the growth rate is "simply" the product of ROCE and reinvestment rate, i.e.,
Long-Term Growth Rate = ROCE * Reinvestment Rate
The ROCE results for BABA and AMZN are shown in the chart below. It is no secret that BABA's profitability has suffered tremendously in the past few years, and this is clearly shown in its ROCE data. Even just a few years back in 2019~2020, its ROCE has been astronomical, exceeding 100% (rivaling that of AAPL, the one with the highest ROCE in the FAAMG pack). But as aforementioned, due to the slowdown of China's macroeconomic growth and also the tightened regulation controls since 2021, its ROCE has suffered immensely. To wit, its ROCE has been on average 79.5% since 2020. And it currently hovers around 62.4% based on its most latest 2022 Q3 TTM financials as shown in the 2nd chart below.
AMZN's ROCE in latest years has unfortunately followed a similar trend as seen, except with a less dramatic decline. AMZN boasted a superb ROCE in the earlier part of the decade too, between 50% and 100%. In latest years since 2020, AMZN's ROCE has contracted substantially to an average of 29.0%. And its most latest 2022 Q3 TTM ROCE is even below this average as seen.
However, when we broaden our view a bit wider, both AMZN and BABA still enjoy robust ROCE. As a reference point, the overall economy's ROCE is around 20%. And as I will argue next, AMZN and BABA enjoy far better growth potential than the overall economy thanks to the secular shift towards e-commerce.
As aforementioned, I see BABA and AMZN as the bellwether stocks in the e-commerce space, and I also see both of the best-positioned stocks to capitalize on the secular growth of e-commerce. With all the online shopping apps installed on our smartphones, it is sometimes easy to form the misconception that e-commerce penetration is already toward an end. But the reality is nothing but. The global e-commerce penetration is at ~20%. Thus, the majority (80% of it) of commerce is still offline. Global retail e-commerce sales only reached $4.2 trillion in 2020. The bulk of the growth curve is still yet to come, with retail e-commerce projected to double in size by 2026, hitting $7.4 trillion.
Another key growth area for both BABA and AMZN is could. AMZN is the leading cloud provider in the U.S., with a market share far higher than MSFT and GOOG as seen from the following IOT report. In particular,
The cloud market has seen revenues grow at high double digits for years according to the report. The global public cloud market reached $157 billion in 2021and is expected to grow into a $2 to $10 trillion industry in a few years according to another.
And just AMZN is the dominant cloud provider in the U.S., BABA is the dominant player in China and other overseas markets. With the rapid growth potential in the could space, I anticipate AMZN and BABA to enjoy the support of this secular trend for many years to come.
As aforementioned, there are definitely headwinds for both stocks in the near term. For BABA, China's COVID-19 restrictions are still impacting many parts of the country's economy (with ripple effects to other countries). Customer growth in its China Commerce division (TaoBao and Tmall in particular) could take time to recover depending on the macroeconomic conditions. AMZN faces a range of near-term uncertainties such as inflation, supply chain pressures, and also currency exchange rates. The profitability of AMZN has been pressured by these headwinds in latest years as mentioned above and I see them persisting into 2023. These headwinds have created a challenging environment for its retail operations, which reported operating losses in latest quarters (as seen from the EBIT margin earlier). In response, AMZN has been dealing with cost control issues. For example, it had to shut down its subsidiary, fabric.com (which sold fabrics for almost 30 years), as a way to slash costs.
All told, I see the market sentiment toward the eCommerce sector has shifted from extreme greed to extreme fear in the past 2 years, as represented by the tremendous valuation contraction in BABA and AZMN stocks. However, business fundamentals still matter and will always matter. As you can see from the table below (which summarizes the key fundamentals and valuation metrics discussed throughout the article), both are still excellent businesses if you just look past the immediate headwinds. In particular, the PE of BABA (around 10x) is so low that it implies a permanently stagnating business despite the tremendous growth opportunities mentioned above. In particular, its cloud segment and International Commerce Retail segment, including Lazada and AliExpress, offer plenty of growth potential.
The MarketWatch News Department was not involved in the creation of this content.
Nov 29, 2022 (The Expresswire) -- Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of Russia-Ukraine War and COVID-19 on this industry.
"Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market" Insights 2022 - By Applications (SMEs, Large Enterprises), By Types (PPC Management Tools, PPC Keyword and Competitor Research Tools, PPC Call Tracking Tools, PPC Analysis Tools, PPC Landing Page Tools), By Segmentation analysis, Regions and Forecast to 2028. The Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market Report provides In-depth analysis on the market status of the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Top manufacturers with best facts and figures, meaning, Definition, SWOT analysis, PESTAL analysis, expert opinions and the latest developments across the globe., the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Report contains Full TOC, Tables and Figures, and Chart with Key Analysis, Pre and Post COVID-19 Market Outbreak Impact Analysis and Situation by Regions.
Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Size is projected to Reach Multimillion USD by 2028, In comparison to 2021, at unexpected CAGR during the forecast Period 2022-2028.
Browse Detailed TOC, Tables and Figures with Charts that provides exclusive data, information, vital statistics, trends, and competitive landscape details in this niche sector.
Considering the economic change due to COVID-19 and Russia-Ukraine War Influence, Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools, which accounted for % of the global market of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools in 2021
Moreover, it helps new businesses perform a positive assessment of their business plans because it covers a range of courses market participants must be aware of to remain competitive.
Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Report identifies various key players in the market and sheds light on their strategies and collaborations to combat competition. The comprehensive report provides a two-dimensional picture of the market. By knowing the global revenue of manufacturers, the global price of manufacturers, and the production by manufacturers during the forecast period of 2022 to 2028, the reader can identify the footprints of manufacturers in the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools industry.
Get a demo PDF of report -https://www.360researchreports.com/enquiry/request-sample/19763766
Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market - Competitive and Segmentation Analysis:
Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Reportproviding an overview of successful marketing strategies, market contributions, and latest developments of leading companies, the report also offers a dashboard overview of leading companies' past and present performance. Several methodologies and analyses are used in the research report to provide in-depth and accurate information about the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market.
The Major players covered in the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market report are:
● AdEspresso (HootSuite)
Short Description About Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market:
The Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market is anticipated to rise at a considerable rate during the forecast period, between 2022 and 2028. In 2021, the market is growing at a steady rate and with the rising adoption of strategies by key players, the market is expected to rise over the projected horizon.
The global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market is projected to reach USD million by 2028 from an estimated USD million in 2022, at a CAGR of % during 2023 and 2028.
North American market for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools is estimated to increase from USD million in 2022 to reach USD million by 2028, at a CAGR of % during the forecast period of 2023 through 2028.
Asia-Pacific market for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools is estimated to increase from USD million in 2022 to reach USD million by 2028, at a CAGR of % during the forecast period of 2022 through 2028.
The major global companies of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools include Google, Microsoft, WordStream, AdEspresso (HootSuite), SpyFu, iSpionage, Invoca, Twilio, CallRail, Twitter, Unbounce, Leadpages, Buzzsumo, Baidu, Westwinetc. In 2021, the world's top three vendors accounted for approximately % of the revenue.
The global market for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools is estimated to increase from USD million in 2022 to USD million by 2028, at a CAGR of % during the forecast period of 2022 through 2028.
This report aims to provide a comprehensive presentation of the global market for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools, with both quantitative and qualitative analysis, to help readers develop business/growth strategies, assess the market competitive situation, analyze their position in the current marketplace, and make informed business decisions regarding Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools.
The Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market size, estimations, and forecasts are provided in terms of output/shipments (K PCs) and revenue (USD millions), considering 2021 as the base year, with history and forecast data for the period from 2017 to 2028. This report segments the global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market comprehensively. Regional market sizes, concerning products by types, by application, and by players, are also provided. The influence of COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine War were considered while estimating market sizes.
For a more in-depth understanding of the market, the report provides profiles of the competitive landscape, key competitors, and their respective market ranks. The report also discusses technological trends and new product developments.
The report will help the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools manufacturers, new entrants, and industry chain related companies in this market with information on the revenues, production, and average price for the overall market and the sub-segments across the different segments, by company, product type, application, and regions.
Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market is further classified on the basis of region as follows:● North America (United States, Canada and Mexico) ● Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Russia and Turkey etc.) ● Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam) ● South America (Brazil, Argentina, Columbia etc.) ● Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)
This Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Research/Analysis Report Contains Answers to your following Questions● What are the global trends in the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market? Would the market witness an increase or decline in the demand in the coming years? ● What is the estimated demand for different types of products in Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools? What are the upcoming industry applications and trends for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market? ● What Are Projections of Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Industry Considering Capacity, Production and Production Value? What Will Be the Estimation of Cost and Profit? What Will Be Market Share, Supply and Consumption? What about Import and Export? ● Where will the strategic developments take the industry in the mid to long-term? ● What are the factors contributing to the final price of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools? What are the raw materials used for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools manufacturing? ● How big is the opportunity for the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market? How will the increasing adoption of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools for mining impact the growth rate of the overall market? ● How much is the global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market worth? What was the value of the market In 2020? ● Who are the major players operating in the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools market? Which companies are the front runners? ● Which are the latest industry trends that can be implemented to generate additional revenue streams? ● What Should Be Entry Strategies, Countermeasures to Economic Impact, and Marketing Channels for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Industry?
Customization of the Report
Our research analysts will help you to get customized details for your report, which can be modified in terms of a specific region, application or any statistical details. In addition, we are always willing to comply with the study, which triangulated with your own data to make the market research more comprehensive in your perspective.
Inquire more and share questions if any before the purchase on this report at -https://www.360researchreports.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/19763766
Detailed TOC of Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Insights and Forecast to 2028
1 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Overview
1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools
1.2 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Segment by Type
1.2.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Size Growth Rate Analysis by Type 2022 VS 2028
1.3 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Segment by Application
1.3.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption Comparison by Application: 2022 VS 2028
1.4 Global Market Growth Prospects
1.4.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Revenue Estimates and Forecasts (2017-2028)
1.4.2 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Estimates and Forecasts (2017-2028)
1.5 Global Market Size by Region
1.5.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Size Estimates and Forecasts by Region: 2017 VS 2021 VS 2028
1.5.2 North America Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Estimates and Forecasts (2017-2028)
1.5.3 Europe Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Estimates and Forecasts (2017-2028)
1.5.4 China Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Estimates and Forecasts (2017-2028)
1.5.5 Japan Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Estimates and Forecasts (2017-2028)
1.5.6 South Korea Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Estimates and Forecasts (2017-2028)
2 Market Competition by Manufacturers
2.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Market Share by Manufacturers (2017-2022)
2.2 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Revenue Market Share by Manufacturers (2017-2022)
2.3 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Share by Company Type (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3)
2.4 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Average Price by Manufacturers (2017-2022)
2.5 Manufacturers Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Sites, Area Served, Product Types
2.6 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Competitive Situation and Trends
2.6.1 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Concentration Rate
2.6.2 Global 5 and 10 Largest Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Players Market Share by Revenue
2.6.3 Mergers and Acquisitions, Expansion
3 Production by Region
3.1 Global Production of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Share by Region (2017-2022)
3.2 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Revenue Market Share by Region (2017-2022)
3.3 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2017-2022)
3.4 North America Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production
3.4.1 North America Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Growth Rate (2017-2022)
3.4.2 North America Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2017-2022)
3.5 Europe Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production
3.5.1 Europe Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Growth Rate (2017-2022)
3.5.2 Europe Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2017-2022)
3.6 China Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production
3.6.1 China Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Growth Rate (2017-2022)
3.6.2 China Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2017-2022)
3.7 Japan Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production
3.7.1 Japan Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Growth Rate (2017-2022)
3.7.2 Japan Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2017-2022)
3.8 South Korea Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production
3.8.1 South Korea Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Growth Rate (2017-2022)
3.8.2 South Korea Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2017-2022)
4 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption by Region
4.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption by Region
4.1.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption by Region
4.1.2 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption Market Share by Region
4.2 North America
4.2.1 North America Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption by Country
4.2.2 United States
4.3.1 Europe Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption by Country
4.4 Asia Pacific
4.4.1 Asia Pacific Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption by Region
4.4.4 South Korea
4.4.5 China Taiwan
4.4.6 Southeast Asia
4.5 Latin America
4.5.1 Latin America Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Consumption by Country
5 Segment by Type
5.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Market Share by Type (2017-2022)
5.2 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Revenue Market Share by Type (2017-2022)
5.3 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Price by Type (2017-2022)
6 Segment by Application
6.1 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production Market Share by Application (2017-2022)
6.2 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Revenue Market Share by Application (2017-2022)
6.3 Global Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Price by Application (2017-2022)
7 Key Companies Profiled
7.1 Company 1
7.1.1 Company 1 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Corporation Information
7.1.2 Company 1 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Product Portfolio
7.1.3 Company 1 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2017-2022)
7.1.4 Company 1 Main Business and Markets Served
7.1.5 Company 1 latest Developments/Updates
8 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Manufacturing Cost Analysis
8.1 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Key Raw Materials Analysis
8.1.1 Key Raw Materials
8.1.2 Key Suppliers of Raw Materials
8.2 Proportion of Manufacturing Cost Structure
8.3 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools
8.4 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Industrial Chain Analysis
9 Marketing Channel, Distributors and Customers
9.1 Marketing Channel
9.2 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Distributors List
9.3 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Customers
10 Market Dynamics
10.1 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Industry Trends
10.2 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Drivers
10.3 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Challenges
10.4 Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Restraints
11 Production and Supply Forecast
11.1 Global Forecasted Production of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Region (2023-2028)
11.2 North America Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue Forecast (2023-2028)
11.3 Europe Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue Forecast (2023-2028)
11.4 China Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue Forecast (2023-2028)
11.5 Japan Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue Forecast (2023-2028)
11.6 South Korea Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Production, Revenue Forecast (2023-2028)
12 Consumption and Demand Forecast
12.1 Global Forecasted Demand Analysis of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools
12.2 North America Forecasted Consumption of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Country
12.3 Europe Market Forecasted Consumption of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Country
12.4 Asia Pacific Market Forecasted Consumption of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Region
12.5 Latin America Forecasted Consumption of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Country
13 Forecast by Type and by Application (2023-2028)
13.1 Global Production, Revenue and Price Forecast by Type (2023-2028)
13.1.1 Global Forecasted Production of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Type (2023-2028)
13.1.2 Global Forecasted Revenue of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Type (2023-2028)
13.1.3 Global Forecasted Price of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Type (2023-2028)
13.2 Global Forecasted Consumption of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Application (2023-2028)
13.2.1 Global Forecasted Production of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Application (2023-2028)
13.2.2 Global Forecasted Revenue of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Application (2023-2028)
13.2.3 Global Forecasted Price of Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools by Application (2023-2028)
14 Research Finding and Conclusion
15 Methodology and Data Source
15.1 Methodology/Research Approach
15.1.1 Research Programs/Design
15.1.2 Market Size Estimation
15.1.3 Market Breakdown and Data Triangulation
15.2 Data Source
15.2.1 Secondary Sources
15.2.2 Primary Sources
15.3 Author List
Purchase this report (Price 3900 USD for a single-user license) -https://www.360researchreports.com/purchase/19763766
360 Research Reports is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs. At 360 Research Reports, our objective is providing a platform for many top-notch market research firms worldwide to publish their research reports, as well as helping the decision makers in finding most suitable market research solutions under one roof. Our aim is to provide the best solution that matches the exact customer requirements. This drives us to provide you with custom or syndicated research reports.
Press Release Distributed by The Express Wire
To view the original version on The Express Wire visit Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Tools Market Size, Fundamentals And Forecast Analysis 2022-2028 with Top Countries Data
The MarketWatch News Department was not involved in the creation of this content.
By manipulating the plasmonic features of nanomaterials, surface-enhanced Raman provides a significant improvement in sensitivity compared to traditional Raman spectroscopy, enabling the detection of analytes down to parts-per-billion (ppb) levels.
Nikalyte has used its advanced nanoparticle deposition technology to create high-performance, economical substrates for surface-enhanced Raman, allowing laboratories of any size to achieve inexpensive, versatile, and ultrasensitive analyte detection.
Image Credit: Nikalyte Ltd
When matter and light interact, some of the light waves will disperse inelastically, meaning that a light wave (photon) loses a portion of its energy to the chemical bonds of the molecule it interacts with before being re-emitted in another direction. This is called Raman scattering.
The volume of energy a photon gives to a molecule during Raman scattering relies on the exact nature of the molecule’s chemical bonds. The loss in photon energy can be detected as a frequency shift in the emitted and absorbed photon, which corresponds to a particular vibrational mode of the molecule it interacted with.
Raman spectroscopy uses this phenomenon to examine a sample’s chemical composition. Examining a demo with a monochromatic light source and assessing the frequency that shifts occur because of Raman scattering makes it possible to detect the sample's chemical bonds and particular molecules.
In 1973, scientists at the University of Southampton made a landmark discovery while studying the Raman spectrum of pyridine. They discovered that letting a demo adsorb to specific surfaces (in their case, a coarsened silver electrode) could considerably Strengthen the intensity of Raman scattering and, therefore, the sensitivity of Raman spectroscopy. This became the foundation of surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy.
Currently, surface-enhanced Raman is achieved by using nanotextured surfaces that present plasmon resonance, such as silver or gold nanoparticles. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy can provide an improvement factor of up to 1012 (1,000,000,000,000) over traditional Raman spectroscopy, rendering it one of the most sensitive analytical spectroscopy methods on earth.
The key benefits of surface-enhanced Raman are its selectivity and sensitivity, enabling the identification of less-than-monolayer coverage of an analyte on a surface, even in a complex mixture.
Image Credit: Nikalyte Ltd
Surface-enhanced Raman is non-destructive and non-invasive. Its comparatively low water sensitivity makes it ideal for all in-situ and in-vitro applications for biological specimens. Surface-enhanced Raman also functions under various pressure and temperature conditions; and usually delivers results within seconds, if not faster.
The flexibility and power of surface-enhanced Raman make it ideal for widespread surface/interface chemistry, catalysis, biology, food science, environment monitoring, nanotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. Despite the clear benefits of surface-enhanced Raman, the method has been underutilized due to the high cost of appropriate substrates and weak measurement reproducibility.
Nikalyte strives to solve the affordability issue in surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Using its signature nanoparticle deposition platform, Nikalyte has created versatile and economical gold nanoparticle substrates to ensure the affordability of surface-enhanced Raman and render it practical for all laboratories.
In contrast to chemically-produced nanoparticles, Nikalyte’s vacuum nanoparticles are ultra-pure and free from ligands or hydrocarbons. Nikalyte’s “naked” gold nanoparticle SERS substrate provides a very high Raman signal-to-noise ratio and improved detection sensitivity.
This information has been sourced, reviewed and adapted from materials provided by Nikalyte Ltd.
For more information on this source, please visit Nikalyte Ltd.
As one of only two teams in the league with two or fewer wins entering Week 11, it’s fair to say the Raiders are performing severely below expectations.
After finishing 10-7 with a Wild Card berth in 2021 and making significant offseason additions like Davante Adams and Chandler Jones, the Raiders are 14th in points scored and 17th in total yards. Defensively, they’re 28th in points allowed and yards allowed.
So as the 2-7 club prepares for a matchup against the division-rival Broncos — one of two teams Las Vegas has defeated this season — offensive coordinator Mick Lombardi and defensive coordinator Patrick Graham both put an emphasis on one word in their Tuesday press conferences:
“I keep saying it over and over again, but we’ve strung good days together on the practice field,” Lombardi said. “And I think the belief from the players and from the coaching staff and everybody, is that stringing good days together on the practice field is going to result in opportunities on Sunday to produce some plays. … We’ve just got to keep putting positive days together and focus on the fundamentals to reduce the negative plays.”
“Just in terms of when you’re not getting the results, the process is the process in terms of what we’re trying to build here, and what we’re going to build here,” Graham said. “The thing you got to stick to is just the fundamentals of the game. It comes down to running, tackling, block destruction, trying to cause turnovers. There’s a lot of stuff to Strengthen upon right now. But the focus has to be on, defensively, tackling, defeating blocks, defending the deep part of the field. Nothing new there because if we just have incremental improvement there, then the results change.
“So, that’s a big focus for us and then just getting better at that. That’s how I know how to go through the process. In my 14 years in the league and my 21 years coaching, that’s really been a good guideline for me and the teams I’ve been a part of.”
When a team is struggling as much as the Raiders have, there isn’t much else to fall back on. We’ll see if the Raiders look more like the team that beat the Broncos 32-23 back in Week Four or the one that has collapsed in losses to the Jaguars and Colts in the last two weeks on Sunday.
With gold starting to run again, the mid-tier and junior gold miners' stocks in their sector's sweet spot for upside potential are increasingly surging. Those mounting gains on accelerating upside momentum are attracting back traders. How far these smaller gold stocks can likely rally in coming months partially depends on how they are faring fundamentally. Their latest earnings season recently wrapping up illuminates that.
Gold-stock tiers are defined by their production rates. Small juniors mine less than 300k ounces of gold annually, medium mid-tiers have outputs running from 300k to 1,000k, large majors yield over 1,000k, and huge super-majors operate at vast scales exceeding 2,000k. The mid-tiers offer a unique mix of sizable diversified production, great output-growth potential, and smaller market capitalizations ideal for outsized gains.
Mid-tiers are much less risky than juniors, and amplify gold's uplegs much more than majors. These mid-tiers are nicely tracked by the GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (NYSEARCA:GDXJ). Birthed in November 2009, it now commands $3.7b of net assets making it the second-largest sector ETF after its big-brother GDX. While GDXJ is way superior on multiple fronts, despite its name it is overwhelmingly comprised of mid-tier gold miners.
Like their major brethren, the mid-tiers have had a tough year on the Fed's most-extreme tightening ever catapulting the US dollar parabolic. Between mid-April to late September, GDXJ collapsed a dreadful 48.8%! That was driven by a parallel 17.9% gold plunge on an epic 14.2% skyrocketing in the US Dollar Index! But that crazy-anomalous Fed dollar/gold shock was ending, as I analyzed a month ago in another essay.
The miserable day I wrote that in early November, gold and GDXJ were still languishing near $1,631 and $28.23. The gold-stock sector had been abandoned and left for dead after a brutal summer. But the Fed's ability to keep goosing the USDX igniting withering gold-futures selling was waning. Then I argued the Fed's "federal-funds rate is nearing terminal-level projections, leaving little room for more hawkish surprises."
And without those forcing the US dollar higher "it is overdue to roll over hard in massive mean-reversion selling. That weaker dollar will fuel huge normalization buying in gold futures, which have been driven to bearish extremes. ... A strengthening gold bull will attract back investors, amplifying its gains as inflation ravages stock markets. The battered gold stocks will soar with gold, winning fortunes for contrarian traders."
That indeed started to happen between early November into the middle of this week. Gold blasted 8.5% higher in less than a month on the US Dollar Index plunging 6.3%! That launched GDXJ up 26.5% in that short span, with better mid-tiers far outperforming their benchmark. Exiting November, we had unrealized gains in our latest newsletter trades running as high as +66.5%! The gold stocks are off to the races again.
So the legions of ostriching traders who ignored this sector's incredible buy-low opportunities in latest months need to start paying attention. While the mid-tiers' and juniors' stock-price gains are accelerating, they remain small if a major gold upleg is getting underway. GDXJ skyrocketed 188.9% higher in just 4.8 months out of March 2020's pandemic-lockdown stock panic, and GDXJ was just bashed back to those levels!
With massive upside potential as gold mean reverts higher, the mid-tiers' and juniors' fundamentals are important. For 26 quarters in a row now, I've painstakingly analyzed the latest operational and financial results reported by GDXJ's 25 largest miners. They accounted for 65.1% of this ETF's total weighting as of mid-November when Q3 earnings season ended, the lion's share of GDXJ's sprawling 101 component stocks.
This table summarizes the operational and financial highlights from the GDXJ top 25 in Q3'22. These gold miners' stock symbols aren't all US listings, and are preceded by their ranking changes within GDXJ over this past year. The shuffling in their ETF weightings reflects shifting market caps, which reveal both outperformers and underperformers since Q3'21. Those symbols are followed by their current GDXJ weightings.
Next comes these gold miners' Q3'22 production in ounces, along with their year-over-year changes from the comparable Q3'21. Output is the lifeblood of this industry, with investors generally prizing production growth above everything else. After are the costs of wresting that gold from the bowels of the earth in per-ounce terms, both cash costs and all-in sustaining costs. The latter help illuminate miners' profitability.
That's followed by a bunch of hard accounting data reported to securities regulators, quarterly revenues, earnings, operating cash flows, and resulting cash treasuries. Blank data fields mean companies hadn't reported that particular data as of mid-November. The annual changes aren't included if they would be misleading, like comparing negative numbers or data shifting from positive to negative or vice versa.
The elite mid-tier and junior gold miners filling GDXJ's upper ranks reported another challenging quarter. Adjusted for a big GDXJ composition change, their gold production generally declined. And their mining costs collectively surged on output problems at individual mines and raging inflation. Nevertheless, these smaller gold miners remain well-positioned to continuing multiplying gold's gains at it mean reverts way higher.
Marketed to investors as a "Junior Gold Miners ETF", GDXJ certainly shouldn't have any super-majors in its ranks! They belong in this same ETF manager's larger GDX ETF. But inexplicably over this past year, GDXJ's custodians readded super-major Kinross Gold (KGC). It had been a past top GDXJ component, but got rightfully booted in Q4'20. In 2022 KGC expects to produce near a colossal 2,000k gold-equivalent ounces!
For years I've railed against majors and super-majors tainting GDXJ's mission and effectiveness. There's no reason all miners producing over 250k ounces per quarter can't be exclusively included in GDX. With 100+ component stocks, GDXJ has plenty of other holdings to boost weightings on that far better reflect smaller mid-tier and junior gold miners. Forcing Kinross back in contrary to GDXJ's specialty is really distorting.
Last quarter the GDXJ-top-25 gold stocks mined 3,300k ounces of gold which climbed a solid 4.8% year-over-year. Yet excluding KGC's enormous 541k Q3'22 output since it wasn't a GDXJ component a year earlier in Q3'21 paints a way-different picture. That slashes last quarter's collective production to 2,759k ounces, plunging 12.4% YoY! That was much worse than the GDX-top-25 majors' 4.1% YoY decline in Q3.
Yet GDXJ's sequential production growth from Q2'22 really outperformed, rocketing up 13.3% quarter-on-quarter! Kinross isn't a factor here, since it was added back in before that prior quarter. The GDX top 25 which I analyzed a couple weeks ago saw their Q3 aggregate production plunge by 3.9% sequentially from Q2. That was damning because global gold-mining output usually surges dramatically from Q2s to Q3s.
The World Gold Council tracks all that global gold supply-and-demand data in its fantastic quarterly Gold Demand Trends reports. In Q3'22 total world mine production surged a strong 6.5% QoQ. That's actually par for the course according to the WGC. During the entire decade ending 2021, on average Q1s, Q2s, Q3s, and Q4s saw sequential QoQ world gold production running -8.5%, +4.1%, +7.0%, and +0.7%!
So the mid-tiers and juniors of GDXJ clocking in with outstanding 13.3% QoQ gold production growth are far outperforming their larger major peers. That's the primary attribute of smaller gold miners that makes them more attractive than larger ones. Operating at smaller scales, it is far easier for mid-tiers and juniors to consistently grow their gold output on balance compared to majors which usually fail to overcome depletion.
These sweet-spot-for-upside-potential mid-tiers and juniors usually only operate a few mines at most, so occasional expansions and relatively-affordable mid-sized mine-builds really boost their outputs. That helps them overcome depletion to generally grow their production over time. Meanwhile most of the majors have struggled with shrinking production for years, unable to find enough gold and buy enough mines.
The smaller gold miners' second big advantage over larger ones is their lower market capitalizations. In mid-November right after Q3 earnings season, these top 25 GDXJ components averaged market caps of $2,890m. That was just 30% of the average market caps of the GDX-top-25 majors, and that is skewed high by the majors wrongly included in GDXJ. This smaller-miner ETF is mostly a subset of that larger one.
I've long argued GDX and GDXJ inclusion should be mutually exclusive, greatly increasing these ETFs' utility to investors. Since the same company manages both, that should be easy to do. Yet 14 of these GDXJ-top-25 stocks are also GDX-top-25 ones, and fully 21 are also GDX components! The GDXJ top 25 were clustered between the 12th to 34th rankings in GDX, totaling 26.4% of it compared to 65.1% of GDXJ.
Yet despite that big overlap, the larger majors and super-majors GDXJ excludes are mostly dead-weight in GDX. Its top 11 majors accounted for a whopping 66.8% of its weighting exiting Q3's earnings season, and averaged huge market caps of $17,647m! So despite the commingling of GDX and GDXJ holdings, the latter ETF is much better weighting fundamentally-superior mid-tier and junior gold miners much more highly.
Cost inflation was extensive in the GDX-top-25 majors' Q3'22 results. Not surprisingly mid-tiers suffered these same pressures. In normal times, unit gold-mining costs are generally inversely-proportional to gold-production levels. That's because gold mines' total operating costs are largely fixed during pre-construction planning stages, when designed throughputs are determined for plants processing gold-bearing ores.
Their nameplate capacities don't change quarter to quarter, requiring similar levels of infrastructure, equipment, and employees to keep running at full-speed. So the only real variable driving quarterly gold production is the ore grades fed into these plants. Those vary widely even within individual gold deposits. Richer ores yield more ounces to spread mining's big fixed costs across, lowering unit costs and boosting profitability.
But while fixed costs are the lion's share for gold mining, it also demands sizable variable costs. Energy is the biggest category, including electricity to power ore-processing plants like mills and diesel fuel to run excavators and dump trucks hauling raw ores to those facilities. Other smaller consumables range from explosives to blast out ores to chemical reagents necessary to process various ores to recover their gold.
The GDXJ top 25's generally-lower outputs would've driven their costs higher last quarter regardless of consumables prices. Less ores processed through mills or lower-grade ores both reduce gold ounces produced, forcing each to bear more fixed costs. But these elite mid-tier gold miners were also paying more for variable-cost consumables. That proved a common theme through the majority of their quarterlies.
Pan American Silver's (PAAS) Q3'22 Management Discussion and Analysis was a representative example of this challenge. PAAS's management warned that "During Q3 2022, all operations were negatively impacted by inflationary pressures, mainly reflecting increased prices for diesel and certain consumables, including cyanide, explosives, and steel products (such as grinding media), as well as supply-chain shortages."
That continued "We are also experiencing indirect cost increases in other supplies and services due to the inflationary impact of diesel and consumable prices on third-party suppliers." And B2Gold advised "The Company's operations continue to be impacted by global cost inflation with fuel costs reflecting the most significant increases." Diesel prices skyrocketed in the middle of this year, more than doubling in the US!
Cash costs are the classic measure of gold-mining costs, including all cash expenses necessary to mine each ounce of gold. But they are misleading as a true cost measure, excluding the big capital needed to explore for gold deposits and build mines. So cash costs are best viewed as survivability acid-test levels for mid-tier gold miners. They illuminate the minimum gold prices necessary to keep the mines running.
In Q3'22 these GDXJ-top-25 mid-tiers reporting cash costs averaged a record $987 per ounce, surging 8.9% YoY! While that is far below prevailing gold prices, it is concerning. Thankfully a couple extreme outliers skewed this average way higher. Excluding the lofty cash costs reported by SSR Mining (SSRM) and First Majestic Silver (AG), the rest of these miners averaged a way-better $878 which would've retreated 3.0% YoY.
SSRM suffered a horrendous Q3, seeing its total gold production crash 51.5% YoY which was far worse than any of its peers! That was because operations were temporarily suspended at its primary gold mine in Turkey. In late June, a small cyanide leak was discovered from a pipe running to its leach pad. That was quickly cleaned and fixed, but local regulators didn't authorize mining to resume until late September.
That mine being offline for a quarter catapulted SSR Mining's cash costs up 64.5% YoY to $1,051. They will collapse back to inflation-adjusted norms in coming quarters with that mine running. Even worse were First Majestic Silver's insane $2,767 cash costs which soared 59.5% YoY! That company operates three primary silver mines that are thriving, and a fourth small gold one yielding under a quarter of AG's gold in Q3.
That problematic mine has been plagued with sky-high costs ever since AG bought it, and they continue to worsen despite much guidance to the contrary. The three-fourths of First Majestic's gold production coming from its silver mines is considered a byproduct, so reported cash costs are only for that little gold mine's 16k ounces in Q3. That rounding error of a sliver of GDXJ-top-25 output shouldn't unduly taint the whole.
Thanks to these same extreme outliers, the GDXJ top 25's average all-in sustaining costs blasted 17.7% higher YoY to a record $1,403 per ounce in Q3'22! Interestingly that was right in line with the GDX-top-25 majors' $1,391. GDX also includes SSRM and AG, so they heavily distorted its average costs as well. They reported extreme AISCs skyrocketing 89.0% YoY to $1,901 and 45.1% YoY to a dumbfounding $3,317!
Exclude them, and the rest of these elite mid-tier and junior gold miners averaged far better AISCs of just $1,252 per ounce last quarter. That would've merely been up 5.0% YoY, really impressive with inflation raging worldwide! That is also right in line with the GDX majors' average of $1,239 excluding SSRM and AG. Both companies expect their AISCs to plunge, forecasting full-year 2022's running $1,330 and $1,800.
But even GDXJ's adjusted $1,252 is still really high, and high AISCs cut into profit margins. A great proxy for sector unit profits is calculated by subtracting mid-tiers' quarterly-average AISCs of $1,403 from the quarterly-average gold prices. Those ran $1,727 in Q3'22, slumping a slight 3.5% YoY. That implies the GDXJ top 25 earned $324 per ounce of gold produced last quarter, which collapsed a massive 45.8% YoY!
These elite mid-tier and junior gold miners haven't earned so little in any quarter since Q4'18. During the couple years leading into Q3'22, those quarterly implied unit profits averaged a hefty $681! But Q3's unit earnings are also heavily distorted by those anomalous costs at SSR Mining and First Majestic Silver. If they are excluded the rest of the GDXJ top 25 earned a much-more-reasonable $475 per ounce last quarter.
And that ought to really Strengthen going forward. The majority of these elite smaller gold miners still have 2022 AISC guidance lower than their Q3'22 actuals. While those again averaged $1,403, the average full-year forecasts were much lower averaging $1,232. And to drag down 2022's four-quarter averages so much, this current Q4 needs to see way better AISCs. Many of the GDXJ top 25 predicted much-lower ones.
Gold is faring better too, again soaring $138 higher in less than a month since early November! With this exceedingly-hawkish Fed out of room to keep surprising markets after such uber-aggressive tightening, gold is mean reverting out of this year's extreme anomaly. While gold is only averaging $1,697 quarter-to-date in Q4, that should Strengthen considerably as gold continues powering higher on the weakening US dollar.
Assume gold averages around $1,725 this quarter and GDXJ-top-25 Q4 average AISCs plunge near $1,175 on better production, and mid-tiers' implied unit profits could nearly double back up to $550 per ounce! While predicting a precise target is impossible, all signs are pointing to much-better profitability in Q4 than Q3. Last quarter had a lot of individual-mine challenges that these companies said are being resolved.
These elite gold miners' hard accounting data reported to securities regulators under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or other countries' equivalents also reflected Q3'22's trials. Even including Kinross, the GDXJ top 25's total revenues still fell 5.5% YoY to $6,555m. That reflects generally lower gold output excluding KGC, which again fell 12.4% YoY. Those lower average gold prices certainly didn't help either.
The mid-tiers' and juniors' real accounting profits looked far worse, plummeting from $212m a year earlier to a $240m loss in Q3'22! But these weak earnings were skewed by unusual one-time losses that were flushed through income statements. An example is Osisko Gold Royalties' big $108m non-cash loss in Q3'22, on no longer consolidating its former mine-development division in its corporate financial statements.
Cash flows generated from operations were also weak even with Kinross's addition, falling 14.6% YoY to $1,343m. That's still consistent with lower production and softer gold prices though. Finally the GDXJ top 25's aggregate cash treasuries fell a similar 15.0% YoY to $7,817m. That's above midway between the 26-quarter range running from $3,576m to $10,144m, leaving these smaller gold miners with plenty of cash.
They'll probably continue using it to expand their existing gold mines and develop new ones, growing their production on balance. Some of these mid-tiers have new mine-builds that are going live in coming quarters. They are projected to operate at much lower all-in sustaining costs than existing mines, which will drag down companies' overall costs. The fundamentally-superior mid-tiers and juniors have huge upside potential!
The bottom line is the mid-tier and junior gold miners reported a challenging Q3. They generally suffered lower production on individual-mine problems, which combined with inflationary pressures to force mining costs to record highs. Yet these companies are reporting those issues are largely resolved, paving the way for better output and lower costs during this current Q4. That should really boost mid-tiers' profitability.
And their earnings should be further supercharged by gold itself mean reverting way higher. Big gold-futures buying is fueling a growing gold upleg as the Fed-goosed US dollar rolls over hard. Gold's strong upside momentum is attracting back traders and rekindling bullish sentiment. That will drive increasing interest in the fundamentally-superior smaller gold-mining stocks, which really amplify gold's gains during uplegs.
Copyright 2000 - 2022 Zeal LLC (www.ZealLLC.com)
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Saints coach Dennis Allen placed a renewed focus on fundamentals during the past week of practice and it appeared to pay off.
New Orleans did not turn the ball over, didn't have many missed tackles and was called for just two penalties during a 27-20 victory over the Los Angeles Rams on Sunday that kept the Saints within 1 1/2 games of first place in the NFC South, where no team has a winning record.
“Our tackling was really good," Allen said Monday after reviewing game video. "Our fundamentals on both sides of the ball were pretty good.
“A lot of times, penalties are a result of utilizing poor fundamentals or technique and then you get caught in a bad position,” Allen noted.
Playing with a patchwork offensive line that was missing three starters, the Saints prevented Rams star defensive lineman Aaron Donald from getting a sack or otherwise making a game-changing play.
Right tackle Ryan Ramczyk, who along with right guard Cesar Ruiz were the only regular starting offensive linemen to play in the game, said New Orleans' success likely stemmed in part from a “shared sense of urgency” that has players holding one another accountable.
With six games to play, the Saints have a decreasing margin for error if they want to catch first-place Tampa Bay (5-5).
“There’s no time for mishaps, miscommunication, any of that stuff,” Ramczyk said. "We've got to be locked in every week and I think that’s known. There’s a huge sense of urgency right now in this locker room.”
Allen said the premium the Saints have placed on character and leadership leaves him certain that if the Saints falter, it won't be because players checked out mentally as a difficult season wore on.
“Everybody faces adversity at some point in time, in life or in the game of football," Allen said. "How you respond to it says a lot about who you are as an individual.
“I’ve never questioned whether this team was going to go out there and fight,” Allen continued. "I don’t know that we’ve always executed as well as we would like and so, therefor, we haven’t probably gotten as good as results as we would like, but there’s no quit in this team.”
Beyond giving up one long Rams TD pass, the Saints didn't deliver up another reception longer than 20 yards in the game and ranked eighth in the NFL against the pass through Sunday's games. It helps that the Saints have been effective lately in pressuring the quarterback with 10 sacks in the past two games.
"I know we didn’t start off the season pressuring the quarterback as well, but now we’re getting to the point where we’re getting some pretty good pressure on the quarterback and affecting the quarterback,” Allen said.
WHAT NEEDS HELP
The Saints defense has needed to Strengthen its ability to create turnovers all season — and that still hasn't changed after the unit forced no turnovers in Week 11. New Orleans has just two interceptions and five fumble recoveries in 11 gams and has an NFL-worst turnover differential of minus-12.
Linebacker Kaden Ellis has had to play more because of linebacker Pete Werner's injury. He was in on 10 tackles and credited with a 1 1/2 sacks against the Rams. ... Tight end Juwan Johnson has five touchdowns in the past five games.
Defensive back Chris Harris, who was brought in for depth but has been pressed into a more prominent role because of injuries to cornerbacks Marshon Lattimore and Bradley Roby, was beaten deep down the left sideline on Sunday by Tutu Atwell for a 62-yard touchdown.
The Saints were down three defensive ends after Payton Turner went out with an ankle injury Sunday. Cameron Jordan (eye) and Marcus Davenport (calf) missed the Rams game entirely. The Saints' defense also was without Lattimore for a sixth straight game. Werner has missed two games. Left tackle James Hurst is trying to come back from a concussion that sidelined him last weekend.
1 — The number of times the Saints have won this season on the road, where they play their next two games.
The Saints will travel to San Francisco hoping to win two straight for the first time this season. If they do, it sets up a potentially pivotal game in the NFC South in Week 13, when the Saints visit division leader Tampa Bay in a Monday night game.
AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL
The crypto market has witnessed a turbulent few weeks after the FTX collapse but Lido Finance, a liquid staking protocol, has been a bright spot amidst the chaos. According to Data from DeFiLlama, Lido protocol has earned $1 million or more in fees daily since October 26.
Let’s analyze the on-chain fundamentals to see why this trend has continued.
Lido’s growth started in May 2021, pre-FTX collapse. The fees reached an all-time high on Nov. 10 as fee revenue nearly topped $2.6 million. The protocol earns 10% of the total Ethereum (ETH) staking rewards generated from user deposits.
Data also shows a steady increase in deposits to Ethereum’s PoS consensus translates to an uptick in Lido’s fee capture.
Lido’s fee revenue moves in tandem with Ethereum Proof-of-stake (PoS) earnings since Lido sends received Ether to the staking protocol. After the FTX collapse, Ethereum activity has grown thanks to an uptick in decentralized exchange (DEX) activity. Ethereum fees and revenue also reached a 30-day peak on Nov. 8, posting $9.1 million in fees and $7.3 million in revenue.
Unique depositors into the Lido protocol have reached 150,000, demonstrating that Lido is continuing to attract new users. The increase in unique deposits comes after centralized “earn” programs have shown weaknesses due to exposure to their exposure to FTX, Genesis, BlockFi and others.
Daily active users and Lido (LDO) token holders are also increasing on Lido. According to data from Token Terminal, daily active users hit a 90-day high of 837 on Nov. 17 further bolstering the platform’s positive momentum.
Related: DeFi platforms see profits amid FTX collapse and CEX exodus
While fees, deposits and revenue continue to increase for Lido, the market cap of LDO tokens is not keeping pace.
As mentioned above, Lido hit a record amount of fees on Nov. 10, at the same time the market cap decreased from $1.2 billion to $663.7 million.
According to Coingecko, during this same period, the price of LDO tokens dropped from $1.80 to a low of $0.90.
Despite the market-wide downturn, Lido is showing strong fundamentals on multiple fronts. The steady uptick in DAUs, revenue and new unique participants are all key components for assessing growth and sustainability within a DeFi platform.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. Every investment and trading move involves risk, you should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Investors have been conditioned to expect a Santa Claus rally in the stock market heading into year-end as trading volumes decline, news flows dwindle, and positive psychology permeates among retail investors, but that may not be the case this year.
According to a note from TS Lombard, while positive seasonals definitely boost the prospect of further gains, they're outweighed by the fundamentals.
And right now, three bearish fundamental factors are dominating the markets and increase the likelihood that the typical Santa Claus rally stumbles this year, according to the note.
Stocks have already seen big gains since their mid-October low, with the S&P 500 rallying 13%, and up 10% so far in the fourth quarter. But those gains are double the median fourth-quarter rally of 5.5%, and the average fourth-quarter rally of 4.3%.
"Additionally, when the S&P rallies above its 50 and 100-day moving average, it looks technically vulnerable as it heads towards its 200-day moving average," TS Lombard said. That's exactly what's happening, as the index backed away from its 200-day moving average in latest days, falling more than 2%.
"Moreover, the rally in equities contrasts with the rates volatility rebound on the latest spate of Fed hawkish speak," TS Lombard said. The 10-year US Treasury yield has surged nearly 20 basis points over the past two days to 3.77%.
"This week alone we will have a key speech from Powell, US core PCE and a jobs report, followed by an OPEC meeting at the weekend. Then virtually every developed market central bank will report over a two-week period. Plus there will be the US CPI one day before the final Fed meeting of the year, where we will get a new set of projections, dots, and the markets pivot narrative will be put to the test," TS Lombard said.
That's a lot of volatile events for investors to digest in such a short period of time, and it could ultimately lead to big downside moves in the stock market.
As yield curves turn inverted, the writing is on the wall: an economic recession is imminent. That's been TS Lombard's base case since the summer, and the effects of a economy slow walking into a recession means investor sentiment is likely to plummet.
"It is important to note that as the economy deteriorates into a recession, adverse sentiment kicks in and things tend to become non-linear, accelerating the slowdown. Correspondingly, volatility tends to rise form half a year before the recession begins, spiking at the start of the recession," TS Lombard said.
Altogether, the heightened risk for the economy and volatility means that while the end of the year tends to be positive for the stock market based on seasonals, there's high likelihood that bearish fundamentals could dominate and lead to a fizzled out rally.
Keeping up with the comings and goings at Twitter can feel like a full-time job, but Tesla investors need to try to at least keep tabs on what could affect the car company. Their CEO runs Twitter too.
Investors should probably keep on up automotive fundamentals, too.