As a technologist, we competence have wondered about a technological discernment behind unexpected renouned acronyms such as FANG, FAANG, and FAAMG. At a moment, there isn’t one: they are usually shorthand terms being used by batch traders. However, maybe we should be disturbed about GAFAM, that controls so most of a record business.
FANG has been around for a prolonged time. Apparently it was coined in 2013 by Jim Cramer of Cramer’s Mad Money fame. In this case, FANG stood for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google as a organisation of record bonds to watch. Technically, it should now be FANA, given Google became Alphabet. However, Cramer has given switched to FAAA, that stands for Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba and Alphabet.
Someone different (to me during least) extended Cramer’s strange acronym to FAANG by adding Apple, that sounds a reasonable thing to do, even yet Apple’s batch hasn’t accurately been roaring.
More recently, Goldman Sachs came adult with a possess variation: FAAMG. we design we already worked this one out. FAAMG stands for Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Google. However, a purpose had altered somewhat. FAAMG refers to a organisation of record companies with outrageous marketplace capitalizations. This meant Netflix had to be ditched – it’s too tiny – and Microsoft added.
According to Goldman Sachs, a famous 5 FAAMG companies done adult 13 percent of a value, by marketplace capitalization, of a whole SP500. However, they usually broach 6 percent of a revenues and 10 percent of a profits. In other words, Goldman Sachs reckoned people had too most invested in FAAMG, yet it wasn’t suggesting they dump their stocks.
JP Morgan also prefers to use A for Alphabet instead of G for Google, so it has started regulating FAAMA for these “mega-cap stocks”. we haven’t seen most justification that this has unequivocally held on.
Interestingly, a post by TechCrunch columnist Jon Evans recently forked out that Bruce Sterling had lumped a same companies together 5 years ago. And this time, it was for technological reasons: they are “stacks”. According to Sterling:
Stacks. In 2012 it done reduction and reduction clarity to speak about “the Internet,” “the PC business,” “telephones,” “Silicon Valley,” or “the media,” and most some-more clarity to usually investigate Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft. These large 5 American plumb orderly silos are re-making a universe in their image.
If you’re Nokia or HP or a Japanese wiring manufacturer, they stole all your oxygen. There will be a whole lot function among these 5 immeasurable entities in 2013. They never contest head-to-head, yet they’re all preoccupied by “disruption.”
Sterling saw a growth of 5 large “silos”, and if usually he’d coined GAFAM, we competence have spent a past 5 years articulate about it. (I note that ZDNet.fr used it final year in Une semaine chez les GAFAM.)
In a New York Times, Jonathan Taplin also unsuccessful to silver GAFAM or even GAMAF, yet he did lift alarm about them apropos a 5 largest companies by marketplace capitalization. As he forked out, a tip 5 a decade ago were Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Microsoft, Citigroup and Shell Oil.
In Taplin’s case, a problem is their corner power. “We are going to have to confirm sincerely shortly either Google, Facebook and Amazon are a kinds of healthy monopolies that need to be regulated, or either we concede a standing quo to continue, sanctimonious that unobstructed monoliths don’t inflict repairs on a remoteness and democracy.”
Needless to say, a “big five” are not a whole record business. There are other suppliers including ARM, Cisco, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Lenovo, Nvidia, Oracle, Samsung, Qualcomm and many more. But how most do these count on GAMAF?
This is something we competence cruise when determining whose smoke-stack we are in, and how distant we are sealed into it.