3 Beyond Transaction Costs:• E-Commerce and the Power of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Chicago Board Options Exchange Annual Report 2001
01 Chicago Board Options Exchange Annual Report 2001 cv2 CBOE ‘01 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 CBOE is the largest and 01010101010101010most successful options 01010101010101010marketplace in the world. 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 01010101010101010 01010101010101010ifc1 CBOE ‘01 ONE HAS OPPORTUNITIES The NUMBER ONE Options Exchange provides customers with a wide selection of products to achieve their unique investment goals. ONE HAS RESPONSIBILITIES The NUMBER ONE Options Exchange is responsible for representing the interests of its members and customers. Whether testifying before Congress, commenting on proposed legislation or working with the Securities and Exchange Commission on finalizing regulations, the CBOE weighs in on behalf of options users everywhere. As an advocate for informed investing, CBOE offers a wide array of educational vehicles, all targeted at educating investors about the use of options as an effective risk management tool. ONE HAS RESOURCES The NUMBER ONE Options Exchange offers a wide variety of resources beginning with a large community of traders who are the most experienced, highly-skilled, well-capitalized liquidity providers in the options arena. In addition, CBOE has a unique, sophisticated hybrid trading floor that facilitates efficient trading. 01 CBOE ‘01 2 CBOE ‘01 “ TO BE THE LEADING MARKETPLACE FOR FINANCIAL DERIVATIVE PRODUCTS, WITH FAIR AND EFFICIENT MARKETS CHARACTERIZED BY DEPTH, LIQUIDITY AND BEST EXECUTION OF PARTICIPANT ORDERS.” CBOE MISSION LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Unprecedented challenges and a need for strategic agility characterized a positive but demanding year in the overall options marketplace. The Chicago Board Options Exchange ® (CBOE®) enjoyed a record-breaking fiscal year, with a 2.2% growth in contracts traded when compared to Fiscal Year 2000, also a record-breaker. -
Comércio Eletrônico
Comércio Eletrônico Aula 1 - Overview of Electronic Commerce Learning Objectives 1. Define electronic commerce (EC) and describe its various categories. 2. Describe and discuss the content and framework of EC. 3. Describe the major types of EC transactions. 4. Describe the drivers of EC. 5. Discuss the benefits of EC to individuals, organizations, and society. 6. Discuss social computing. 7. Describe social commerce and social software. 8. Understand the elements of the digital world. 9. Describe some EC business models. 10. List and describe the major limitations of EC. Case: Starbucks Electronic Commerce (EC) EC refers to using the Internet and other networks (e.g., intranets) to purchase, sell, transport, or trade data, goods, or services. e-Business • Narrow definition of EC: buying and selling transactions between business partners. • e-Business refers to a broader definition of EC: – buying and selling of goods and services – Servicing customers – collaborating with business partners, – delivering e-learning, – conducting electronic transactions within organizations. – Among others e-Business Note: some view e-business only as comprising those activities that do not involve buying or selling over the Internet, i.e., a complement of the narrowly defined EC. Major EC Concepts: Non-EC vs. Pure EC vs. Partial EC • EC three major activities: – ordering and payments, – order fulfilment, and – delivery to customers. • pure EC: all activities are digital, • non-EC: none are digital, • otherwise, we have partial EC. Major EC Concepts: Pure -
Leading You to a Brighter Future
ANNUAL REPORT 2001 西 日 本ANNUAL REPORT 旅 客 鉄 道 株 式 会 社 一 九 九 九2001 年 三 月 期 年 次 報 告 書 Leading you to a brighter future http://www.softbank.co.jp SOFTBANK 2001 1 C1 QX/Softbank (E) 後半 01.9.12 3:25 PM ページ 60 Directors and Corporate Auditors As of June 21, 2001 President & Chief Executive Officer MASAYOSHI SON Directors YOSHITAKA KITAO KEN MIYAUCHI KAZUHIKO KASAI MASAHIRO INOUE President & CEO, President & CEO, President & CEO, SOFTBANK FINANCE SOFTBANK EC HOLDINGS Yahoo Japan Corporation CORPORATION CORP. RONALD D. FISHER JUN MURAI, PH.D. TOSHIFUMI SUZUKI TADASHI YANAI MARK SCHWARTZ Vice Chairman, Professor, Faculty of President & CEO, President & CEO, Chairman, SOFTBANK Holdings Inc. Environmental Information, Ito-Yokado Co., Ltd., FAST RETAILING CO., LTD. Goldman Sachs (Asia) KEIO University and Chairman & CEO, Seven-Eleven Japan Co., Ltd. Corporate Auditors MITSUO YASUHARU SABURO HIDEKAZU SANO NAGASHIMA KOBAYASHI KUBOKAWA Full-time Corporate Auditor, Attorney Full-time Corporate Auditor, Certified Public Accountant, SOFTBANK CORP. HEIWA Corporation Certified Tax Accountant Note: Corporate auditors Yasuharu Nagashima, Saburo Kobayashi, and Hidekazu Kubokawa are outside corporate auditors appointed under Article 18, Section 1, of the Commercial Code of Japan. 60 60 QX/Softbank (E) 後半pdf修正 01.10.11 10:39 AM ページ 61 SOFTBANK Corporate Directory Domestic Overseas SOFTBANK CORP. SOFTBANK Broadmedia Corporation SOFTBANK Inc. http://www.softbank.co.jp/ http://www.broadmedia.co.jp/ http://www.softbank.com/ 24-1, Nihonbashi-Hakozakicho, Chuo-ku, 24-1, Nihonbashi-Hakozakicho, Chuo-ku, 1188 Centre Street, Tokyo 103-8501, Japan Tokyo 103-0015, Japan Newton Center, MA 02459, U.S.A. -
Last Mile Delivery
Investors have risked billions on Webvan, Urbanfetch, and other same-day transporters. The economics, though, show they won’t deliver for long. Photographs Photographs by Brad Wilson The content business business models LastMile to 40 Nowhere Flaws & Fallacies in Internet Home-Delivery Schemes by Tim Laseter, Pat Houston, Anne Chung, Silas Byrne, Martha Turner, and Anand Devendran Tim Laseter Pat Houston Silas Byrne Anand Devendran ([email protected]) is ([email protected]), a prin- ([email protected]) is an ([email protected]) is a partner in Booz-Allen & cipal in Booz-Allen & Hamilton’s associate in Booz-Allen & a consultant in Booz-Allen & Hamilton’s Operations Practice Cleveland office and a member Hamilton’s New York office Hamilton’s New York office and serves on the firm’s of the Consumer and Health focusing on operational and focusing on operational and e-business core team. He is Group, focuses on strategic organizational issues across a growth strategies across a wide the author of Balanced Sourcing: supply-chain transformation, broad range of industries. range of industries. Cooperation and Competition in particularly as related to Supplier Relationships (Jossey- e-business issues. Martha Turner Bass, 1998). ([email protected]) is an Anne Chung associate in Booz-Allen & ([email protected]), a Hamilton’s New York office Cleveland-based principal of focusing on operations and Booz-Allen & Hamilton, focuses supply-chain management on e-business and supply-chain issues in a variety of industries, strategy as a member of the with particular emphasis on e- firm's Operations Practice. business. Amazon.com’s launch in July 1995 ushered in online sales potential; high cost of delivery; a selection– content an era with a fundamentally new value proposition to the variety trade-off; and existing, entrenched competition. -
KNOWLEDGE@WHARTON on Building Corporate Value
73009_FM 9/16/02 12:55 PM Page iii KNOWLEDGE@WHARTON On Building Corporate Value MUKUL PANDYA, HARBIR SINGH, ROBERT E. MITTELSTAEDT, JR., AND ERIC CLEMONS John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 73009_CH01I 9/13/02 11:45 AM Page 2 73009_FM 9/13/02 11:36 AM Page i KNOWLEDGE@WHARTON ON BUILDING CORPORATE VALUE 73009_FM 9/13/02 11:36 AM Page ii 73009_FM 9/16/02 12:55 PM Page iii KNOWLEDGE@WHARTON On Building Corporate Value MUKUL PANDYA, HARBIR SINGH, ROBERT E. MITTELSTAEDT, JR., AND ERIC CLEMONS John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 73009_FM 9/13/02 11:36 AM Page iv This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2003 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. All rights reserved. Published simultaneously in Canada. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, e-mail: [email protected]. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. -
Walmart Inc. Takes on Amazon.Com
For the exclusive use of Q. Mays, 2020. 9-718-481 REV: JANUARY 21, 2020 DAVID COLLIS ANDY WU REMBRAND KONING HUAIYI CICI SUN Walmart Inc. Takes on Amazon.com At the start of 2018, Walmart faced critical decisions about its future as e-commerce continued to explode. Walmart just lost its long-held crown as the most valuable retailer in the world to online leader Amazon. With Amazon’s recent acquisition of Whole Foods for $13 billion, Amazon moved aggressively into the offline world to challenge Walmart in its biggest business, grocery. Walmart was not standing still, making moves like buying Jet.com for $3 billion in 2016. While Walmart’s U.S. e- commerce revenues grew to $11.5 billion in 2017, there was no debate in Bentonville, AR: Walmart remained far behind. The question for Walmart CEO Doug McMillon and Walmart.com head Marc Lore was how to respond to its most aggressive competitor ever (Exhibits 1a and 1b).1 Amazon The Early Years (1994–2001) Jeff Bezos founded Amazon in 1994 to exploit the Internet, still a relatively nascent technology. He determined that selling books online was most promising, because the number of titles available was greater than even the largest brick-and-mortar store could stock. Bezos and his wife drove west to start “Earth’s Biggest Bookstore” in Seattle, WA. Amazon offered 1 million titles for sale on its opening day in July 1995. Next year, the company had over 2.5 million book titles for sale, with revenue doubling every quarter (Exhibit 2). -
NASD Notice to Members 99-46
Executive Summary $250, and two or more Market NASD Effective July 1, 1999, the maximum Ma k e r s . Small Order Execution SystemSM (S O E S SM ) order sizes for 336 Nasdaq In accordance with Rule 4710, Nas- Notice to National Market® (NNM) securities daq periodically reviews the maxi- will be revised in accordance with mum SOES order size applicable to National Association of Securities each NNM security to determine if Members Dealers, Inc. (NASD®) Rule 4710(g). the trading characteristics of the issue have changed so as to warrant For more information, please contact an adjustment. Such a review was 99-46 ® Na s d a q Market Operations at conducted using data as of March (203) 378-0284. 31, 1999, pursuant to the aforemen- Maximum SOES Order tioned standards. The maximum Sizes Set To Change SOES order-size changes called for Description by this review are being implemented July 1, 1999 Under Rule 4710, the maximum with three exceptions. SOES order size for an NNM security is 1,000, 500, or 200 shares, • First, issues were not permitted to depending on the trading characteris- move more than one size level. For Suggested Routing tics of the security. The Nasdaq example, if an issue was previously ® Senior Management Workstation II (NWII) indicates the categorized in the 1,000-share maximum SOES order size for each level, it would not be permitted to Ad v e r t i s i n g NNM security. The indicator “NM10,” move to the 200-share level, even if Continuing Education “NM5,” or “NM2” displayed in NWII the formula calculated that such a corresponds to a maximum SOES move was warranted. -
How Much Are Your Eyeballs Worth? Placing a Value on a Website's Customers May Be the Best Way to Judge a Net Stock
How Much Are Your Eyeballs Worth? Placing a value on a Website's customers may be the best way to judge a Net stock. It's not perfect, but on the Net, what is? By Erick Schonfeld February 21, 2000 (FORTUNE Magazine) – Internet CEOs crave many things: world domination, instant service in bistros, fawning media attention. But what they crave above all else is eyeballs. That's less ghoulish than it sounds. In Webspeak, you see, eyeballs mean customers. Since the typical dot- com lacks the one metric that Wall Street has traditionally used to evaluate companies (you remember--earnings) analysts and investors have contrived other ways to size up Net stocks. One now stands out: market capitalization per pair of eyeballs. It's a useful first step in explaining why a company garners a certain kind of valuation. For instance, a pair of eyeballs at Web portal Lycos, with a $7.4 billion market cap, has a value of just $244; at Schwab, which has a $30 billion market cap, a pair is worth $4,562 (ironically, this also happens to be around the price a pair of real human corneas reportedly commands on the black market). If the Internet market were rational, the market cap per eyeball would represent the total profit that you could reasonably expect a company to get from its average customer, adjusted for risk and the length of time before those profits are realized. Internet analysts are the first to admit that today's is not a rational market. So correlating the lifetime value of eyeballs to a fast-growing dot-com's stock price is not perfect science. -
Executive Excess 2000 Seventh Annual CEO Compensation Survey
Executive Excess 2000 Seventh Annual CEO Compensation Survey © 2000 The New Yorker Collection, William Hamilton, from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved. Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies Chuck Collins, Chris Hartman, and Felice Yeskel of United for a Fair Economy August 30, 2000 IPS The Institute for Policy Studies is an independent center for progressive research and education founded in Washington, DC in 1963. IPS scholar- activists are dedicated to providing politicians, journalists, academics and activists with exciting policy ideas that can make real change possible. United for a Fair Economy is a national, independent, non-partisan organiza- tion founded in 1994 to focus public attention and action on economic inequal- ity in the United States—and the implications of inequality on American life and labor. United for a Fair Economy provides educational resources, works with grassroots organizations and supports creative and legislative action to reduce inequality. © 2000 Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy For additional copies of this report, send $5.00 plus $1.50 shipping and handling to: Executive Excess 2000 United for a Fair Economy 37 Temple Place, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02111 Or, order with a Visa or MasterCard by calling toll free 1-877-564-6833. Institute for Policy Studies United for a Fair Economy 733 15th St. NW #1020 37 Temple Place, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20005 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 202-234-9382 Phone: 617-423-2148 Fax: 202-387-7915 Fax: 617-423-0191 Website: www.ips-dc.org Website: www.ufenet.org Email: [email protected] Executive Excess 2000 Seventh Annual CEO Compensation Survey Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies Chuck Collins, Chris Hartman, and Felice Yeskel of United for a Fair Economy Research Assistance: Steven Friedman Stacie Garnett Jasmine Miller IPS Contents Key Findings ..................................................................................................... -
Regulatory Circular #RG96
Regulatory Circular RG00-35 Date: February 18, 2000 To: Members and Member Firms From: Market Performance Committee Re: Modified Bid/Ask Differentials Due to the volatility in the underlying stocks and other factors affecting both the options and the underlying, the Market Performance Committee (“Committee”), by its authority under the provisions of Exchange Rule 8.7(b)(iv), has temporarily established modified bid/ask differentials in the option series of the following option classes. Additionally, the Committee has determined that the provision of Rule 8.7 Interpretation .02 (b) will not apply to the classes for the period of time the above exemption was granted. This relief is granted from the opening of business on February 21, 2000 through the March 2000 Expiration Cycle unless withdrawn by the MPC prior to that time. The Committee will continue to monitor the activity in the underlying securities of these options, and will modify the bid/ask differentials in the respective options accordingly. Any questions regarding this memorandum should be directed to Daniel Hustad at (312) 786-7715. Bid/Ask Relief is granted as follows: Class Relief Name DPM BTY Double British Telecom PLC Apollo Partners, L. P. CQF Double COLT Telecom Griyo CQR Double Cree, Inc. QNF Double Nextlink Communications, Inc. RCQ Double Broadcom, Inc. Arbitrade, L.L.C. GQI Double Go2Net, Inc. BE Partners PUP Double Puma Technology, Inc. QMB Double McLeod Options Beartooth Capital, L.L.C. NOK Double Nokia Corporation YHQ Double Yahoo! Inc. LEAPS QTD Double DoubleClick, Inc. Botta Trading - Lacerta RUL Double Research in Motion AYQ Double Art Technology Group, Inc. -
1 UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C
1 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 13F FORM 13F COVER PAGE Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended: September 30, 2000 Check here if Amendment [ ]; Amendment Number: This Amendment (Check only one.): [ ] is a restatement. [ ] adds new holdings entries Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report: Name: AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. Address: 70 Pine Street New York, New York 10270 Form 13F File Number: 28-219 The Institutional Investment Manager filing this report and the person by whom it is signed represent that the person signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements, schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form. Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager: Name: Edward E. Matthews Title: Vice Chairman -- Investments and Financial Services Phone: (212) 770-7000 Signature, Place, and Date of Signing: /s/ Edward E. Matthews New York, New York November 14, 2000 - ------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------- (Signature) (City, State) (Date) Report Type (Check only one.): [X] 13F HOLDINGS REPORT. (Check if all holdings of this reporting manager are reported in this report.) [ ] 13F NOTICE. (Check if no holdings reported are in this report, and all holdings are reported in this report and a portion are reported by other reporting manager(s).) [ ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check -
What Goes Up, Must Come Down: the Politics of the U.S. Internet Industry
2. What Goes Up Must Come Down: The Political Economy of the US Internet Industry Martin Kenney 1. INTRODUCTION The sheer magnitude of the Internet Bubble and subsequent technology stock market crash are a fascinating lens for examining the operation of the entre- preneurial portion of the US national system of innovation (NSI). The intense rapidity with which US firms commercialized the Internet and Worldwide Web (hereafter we refer to both as the ‘Internet’) is a prism for examining the creation of new economic spaces. If one includes the resulting crash, it also exposes some of the weaknesses of the US innovation system. This chapter draws upon the excellent work by Abbate (1999), Mowery and Simcoe (2002), and Berners-Lee (1999) which examines the pre- and early commercialization phases of the Internet. In building upon their work, we extend it in two ways. First, I situate the commercialization of the Internet in the US history of telecommunications deregulation and the entrepreneurial economy of US startup firms. Second, I describe the collapse of the Internet Bubble. The Internet as a commercial proposition emerged during a period within which US industry was undergoing a profound rethinking of the firm’s nature and competencies. Information technologies were one tool in a wave of restructuring, reengineering and reorganization. The firm was being reconcep- tualized as a ‘modular’ organization (Sturgeon, 2002). Moreover, there was a generalized belief that large firms were in danger of being outflanked by smaller, more entrepreneurial firms (Christensen, 1997). In this environment, the Internet and its perceived impact, driven by enormous hype, reached myth- ical dimensions, suggesting that it would change everything.