Skip to main content

Sayonara Panasonic, hello Samsung and Apple?

Taking a look at the charts of Panasonic and Sony today, in light of Panasonic's $9.6 billion loss for the year ($25 billion in losses over five years) and the steadily eroding Japanese consumer electronics business.  



While Panasonic, Sony, and Sharp have been getting killed in the TV and electronics marketplace (and in the share market) over the past few years, others have prospered. 

Apple, which is increasingly seen as more of a design-focused electronics maker, as opposed to a computer company, has seen its stock price quadruple in price over the last five years. 



The US design-meets-Chinese manufacturing combo has helped Apple out-innovate its competitors and undercut their cost structure. A strong yen has also hindered exports of Japanese electronics. 

Samsung has been rising to the top and is now dominating the smartphone market along with Apple. In fact, the two now account for 106 percent of handset profits. That's right, the total is greater than 100% when offsetting losses of the other handset makers. 

 

So while the Japanese firms (who ate everybody's lunch in the '70s and '80s) struggle, Apple, Samsung, and US-based Vizio are making hay. Look no further than the charts above; they clearly show the shift towards the dominance of Korean and US firms (aided by low-cost foreign manufacturing) in electronics. 

So if you're trading or investing in an industry, and you see a trend unfold like this, be sure to go long or short along the line of least resistance - that's with the trend and not against it.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dot-Com Bubble in 1 Chart: InfoSpace

With all the recent talk of a new bubble in the making, thanks in part to the Yellen Fed's continued easy money stance , I thought it'd be instructive to revisit our previous stock market bubble - in one quick chart. So here's what a real stock market bubble looks like.  Here's what a bubble *really* looks like. InfoSpace in 1999-2001. $QQQ $BCOR pic.twitter.com/xjsMk433H7 — David Shvartsman (@FinanceTrends) February 24, 2015   For those of you who are a little too young to recall it, this is a chart of InfoSpace at the height of the Nasdaq dot-com bubble in 1999-2001. This fallen angel soared to fantastic heights only to plummet back down to earth as the bubble, and InfoSpace's shady business plan , turned to rubble. As detailed in our post, " Round trip stocks: Momentum booms and busts ", InfoSpace rocketed from under $100 a share to over $1,300 a share in less than six months.  In a pattern common to many parabolic shooting stars, the s

New! Finance Trends now at FinanceTrendsLetter.com

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL!  Please bookmark our new web address at Financetrendsletter.com Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner .   Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead! As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter . You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter).  Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter .

Jesse Livermore: How to Trade in Stocks (1940 Ed. E-book)

If you've been around markets for any length of time, you've probably heard of 20th century supertrader, Jesse Livermore . Today we're highlighting his rare 1940 work, How to Trade in Stocks (ebook, pdf). But first, a brief overview of Livermore's life and trading career (bio from Jesse Livermore's Wikipedia entry). "During his lifetime, Livermore gained and lost several multi-million dollar fortunes. Most notably, he was worth $3 million and $100 million after the 1907 and 1929 market crashes, respectively. He subsequently lost both fortunes. Apart from his success as a securities speculator, Livermore left traders a working philosophy for trading securities that emphasizes increasing the size of one's position as it goes in the right direction and cutting losses quickly. Ironically, Livermore sometimes did not follow his rules strictly. He claimed that lack of adherence to his own rules was the main reason for his losses after making his 1907 and