 |
|
|
|||||
Today, investors are waking up to red on their screens as many tech and AI stocks are dropping in premarket trading. But why are shares in these companies falling? Much of it has to do with the cloud infrastructure company Oracle (NYSE: ORCL) and its latest quarterly earnings results. Heres what you need to know. Oracle’s Q2 2026 results send ORCL plunging Yesterday, Oracle reported financial results for its second quarter of fiscal 2026. To say investors were disappointed in the results is an understatement, given how poorly ORCL shares are performing in premarket trading this morning. As of the time of this writing, ORCL shares are down over 12% as investors unpack its results: Non-GAAP Earnings per Share: $2.26 Total Revenue: $16.1 billion On the surface, the numbers look good. Non-GAAP earnings per share (EPS) were up 54% and total revenue was up 14%. However, as noted by CNBC, while Oracles non-GAAP EPS beat LSEG analyst expectations of $1.64, analysts were expecting higher total revenue figures: $16.21 billion versus the $16.1 billion Oracle delivered. That discrepancy caused the stock to tumble, even after the company announced new agreements with major AI investors, Nvidia, and Meta. As noted by Investopedia, although these agreements have helped boost Oracle’s remaining performance obligations to $523 billion, they have also raised investor concerns about circular spending in the AI industry. Circular spending refers to when companies invest in each other, effectively passing money back and forth. Circular spending is also one of the biggest reasons why many fear we could be in an AI bubble waiting to pop. Chip stocks fall after Oracles earnings results These AI bubble fears seem to have been renewed today after Oracles financial results. As of the time of this writing, major chip companies operating in the AI space are seeing stock price declines, including: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMD): down 1.2% Arm Holdings plc (Nasdaq: ARM): down 1.2% Broadcom Inc. (Nasdaq: AVGO): down 1.3% Intel Corporation (Nasdaq: INTC): down 1% Micron Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: MU): down 1.1% NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA): down 1.3% QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM): down 0.9% Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (NYSE: TSM): down 1.4% Big Tech shares are also falling after Nvidias earnings Oracle’s disappointing earnings and renewed fears of an AI bubble also seem to be impacting the stock prices of many of techs most prominent players this morning, albeit to a lesser extent: Alphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG): down 0.5% Amazon.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN): down 0.7% Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL): up 0.1% Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nasdaq: META): down 0.9% Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT): down 0.6% Nvidia Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA): down 1.3% As for Oracle itself, the companys stock price is currently down over 12% to $196.25 per share. This decline follows a strong year for Oracle. As of yesterday’s close, the stock is up 33% so far in 2025, outperforming the Nasdaq Composite’s rise of 22.68%. Over the past 12 months, ORCL shares have climbed 25%.
Category:
E-Commerce
I spend most days in rooms where four generations argue about the same spreadsheet. Boomers, Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z staff the same executive teams, often guided by directors from a fifththe Silent Generation. Four different eras, four different mental operating systems, one quarterly earnings call. When leaders tell me, Weve got a generation problem, what they usually have is a self-awareness problem. A widely cited review of so-called generational differences at work found that many popular stereotypes dont hold up very well when you look at actual data on values and attitudes. At the same time, more recent research shows that age-mixed teams can outperform when leaders handle the friction with care. So, the data tell us two things at once: People from different birth years are less alien than weve been told, and they can be a strength or a liability depending on how leaders show up. After three decades recruiting and coaching leaders, Ive learned a simple rule: What you can see, you can shape. What you cant see quietly shapes you. How our eras built our habits Im a boomer. I grew up on a steady diet of show up early, stay late, say yes, sir. That wiring served me well in my time at the White House and later in boardrooms. It also produced a habit that took me years to spot: the urge to please. In hard conversations, Id soften the edges. Add extra words. Smooth things over. Younger colleagues didnt experience that as kindness. They experienced it as dodging. They wanted clarity, not choreography. Psychologist Jean Twenge, in her book Generations, shows how each cohorts habits grew out of the era that raised them: boom-time expansion, layoffs and divorce, student debt and purpose-driven careers, social media and permanent comparison. None of that is virtue or vice. Its conditioning. Trouble comes when we treat our conditioning as the gold standard and everyone elses as a flaw. The most freeing move Ive made as a leader was saying to myself, My boomer urge to be agreeable is watering down the truth. Once I named it, I could do something about it. A good first question for any leader is small and uncomfortable: What do people my age regularly praise me for that might secretly be wearing my team out? When senior leaders look in the mirror This isnt just a mid-career problem. Senior leaders wrestle with it too. Elon Musk, a Gen Xer, has spoken openly about his pathologically optimistic timelines. That belief that nearly anything is solvable with enough grit, iteration, and contrarian thinkingis one of the hallmark traits of the Generation X worldview. For Elon, is has helped drive rockets, electric cars, and ambitious AI projects, and it has also pushed employees into impossible deadlines when reality didnt cooperate. A classic boomer, Jamie Dimon, notes that his vigilance on risk is a strength, and he knows it can land as sharp or impatient in the room. Warren Buffett has explained in shareholder letters that his strong loyalty to managers sometimes kept him from moving fast enough to replace them when performance lagged. These leaders didnt erase their blind spots. They acknowledged them, adjusted, and built teams that were allowed to tell the truth back to them and accelerated performance and massive shareholder value creation. The same move is available to the rest of us. Caricatures versus real people Generational caricatures are easier than real work. Boomers as workaholics. Gen X as cynical. Millennials as needy. Gen Z as fragile. They make for good jokes; they make for bad leadership. A study of multigenerational teams found that most friction comes from mismatched assumptions about communication, career speed, and feedback, not from wildly different values. That lines up with what I see in succession conversations: People want to grow, feel useful, and be treated fairly, regardless of their birth year. They simply learned different ways to signal those desires. You dont need a grand theory to lead through that. You need a few habits that make your own lens visible to you and to others. 5 small moves to shrink the ‘generation gap’ Heres a list I often give to CEOs who are tired of the generational blame game: Run a shadow meeting review once a month. After a key meeting, ask one person whos at least 15 years older or younger than you: Walk me through how that meeting felt to youwhat landed, what didnt? Listen without defending. Add a two-question feedback round every quarter. Ask your direct reports: Whats one thing I should keep doing? Whats one thing I should adjust? No surveys. Just live conversation. Pair up for reverse mentoring. Invite a younger colleague to teach you one digital habit or collaboratio tool they rely on. In return, offer one story about a time you failed and recovered. Research on reverse mentoring points to gains on both sidesskills and understanding grow together. Narrate your intent. In tense moments, say aloud what youre trying to do: Im pushing hard here because Im worried about risk, or Im being quiet here because I want to hear others first. Youll be surprised how much misreading that removes. Pick one generational habit to bend. A Silent-era or boomer leader might deliberately leave the office on time twice a week and invite a younger colleague to walk out with them. A Millennial or Gen Z leader might choose one meeting a day where the laptop stays shut and the phone stays face-down. None of that requires a task force. It does require an honest look in the mirror. The real bridge across generations When leaders learn to notice their own blind spots and talk openly about them, something changes in the room. Silent-era steadiness calms Gen Z anxiety. boomer grit reinforces Millennial desire for purpose. Gen X realism ties these temperaments together. The bridge is not another app, policy, or slogan about generations. The bridge is a leader willing to see themselves clearly and invite others to do the same.
Category:
E-Commerce
Instacarts artificial intelligence-enabled pricing may be increasing the cost of your groceries by as much as $1,200 a year, according to a new study published on Monday. Instacart is an online grocery delivery and pickup service that allows customers to order groceries from local stores by using its technology platform, via app or its website, and then fulfills those orders through a personal shopper. The investigation from Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive policy group, found that some identical products were priced differently from one customer to the nextsometimes by as much as 23%. One company executive reportedly called the tactic smart rounding in an email between Instacart and Costco that Consumer Reports says was inadvertently sent to the magazine by Costco. The findings are based on data from 200 volunteers who checked prices on 20 items, in four cities, and found a difference in about 75% of those items in some of the biggest grocery and big-box retailers, including Costco, Kroger, Safeway, Sprouts Farmers Market, Albertsons, and Target. (Prices for the same products varied from as little as 7 cents to $2.56 per item.) Instacart, which previously disclosed its pricing experiments in corporate marketing and investor materials, said its shoppers are not aware that theyre involved in an experiment, but said the resulting price differences are small and negligible. “These tests are not dynamic pricingprices never change in real time, including in response to supply and demand,” an Instagram spokesperson told Fast Company. “The tests are never based on personal or behavioral characteristicsthey are completely randomized.” Instacart said the stores control the prices, and they work closely with them to align online and in-store pricing, wherever possible. “Each retailers pricing policy is displayed on their Instacart storefront, so customers always know when prices may differ from in-store and can easily compare prices across retailers before checkout,” the spokesperson added. “Just as retailers have long tested prices in their physical stores to better understand consumer preferences, a subset of only 10 retail partnersones that already apply markupsdo the same online via Instacart. These limited, short-term, and randomized tests help retail partners learn what matters most to consumers and how to keep essential items affordable.” As a result, a customer may see slightly lower prices on family staples such as milk or bread, and slightly higher prices on less price-sensitive products like craft beverages or specialty snacks, Instacart said.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||