Просмотр всех статей Февраль, 2011
Фев
28
0

Минимализм сейчас в моде

clean01 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean02 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean08 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean07 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean09 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean04 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean05 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean10 Минимализм сейчас в моде
clean06 Минимализм сейчас в моде
Нравится?

Автор Прикладной трейдинг (дневник упрямого трейдера)    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
28
0

Евро или доллар

Многие задавались вопросом почему при геополитической напряженности деньжата убежали в Евро, а не в доллар. Окзывается, что одна из причин роста Евро заключалась в том, что арабы не особо то любят доллар по причине империалистической сущности доллара и поэтому деньги из арабского региона убежали в Евро , что вызвало спрос. Когда проблема глобального масштаба, то доллар все еще есть safe haven , а поскольку ситуация носит региональный характер, то и выбор Евро явился выбором региона.
Ну рах уж затронул тему Евро, то и рост в последнее время также связан с ястребинными высказываниями членов ЕЦБ, а заседание 3 марта, что также заставляет нервничат ШОРТовиков. Однако, сегодня данные по CPI еврозоны не поддерживают тезис о повышении ставок.
valid2117 hd50e2467da78835029c0c16b59235660 Евро или доллар

Автор osmar92    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
28
0

my_trade @ 2011-02-28T12:44:00

Где можна снегоцикл в москве надыбать напрокат?)

спс

Автор My-trade    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
28
0

Кое что из Блумберга

 ШОРТы в акциях сокращаются на протяжении последних 4 месяцев и достигли рекордно низкогого значения 3.3% от общего количества в соответствии с данными от NYSE.
С начала года приток средств от индивидумальнвх инвесторов составил порядка $17,6 миллиардов, это впервые с апреля прошлого года( отток $94,7 миллиардов)
Data Explorers , компания специализирующаяся на данных по шортам, говорит, что соотношение лонгующихся к шортящим составляет 12:1, это в 2 раза больше, чем по состоянию , когда Lehman объявил банкротство.
46 акций с самым высоким ШОРТ соотношением выросли на 32% с 26 августа 2010г, с момента объявления QE.
Birinyi говорит., что в конце 90х, но топе шорты составляли порядка 1-2%.
В целом с 1995г, среднее значение шортов около 2.3%

valid2117 hd50e2467da78835029c0c16b59235660 Кое что из Блумберга

Автор osmar92    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
28
0

Выгодные колебания

Торговля на колебаниях может быть описана как вид фундаментальной торговли, при которой позиции удержива­ются дольше одного дня. Это связано с тем, что большинство сторонников фундаментального анализа, фактически, явля­ются трейдерами на колебаниях, так как изменение фунда­ментального фона обычно требует нескольких дней или даже недель, чтобы привести к достаточному ценовому дви­жению. дающему разумную прибыль.

Но это описание торговли на колебаниях является не­сколько упрошенным. В действительности, торговля на коле­баниях скорее находится между внутри-дневной и трендовой торговлей. Внутри-дневной трейдер удерживает торговую позицию от нескольких секунд до нескольких часов, но не больше дня. Трендовый трейдер исследует долгосрочные фундаментальные тенденции того или иного рынка, и может держать торговую позицию в течение нескольких недель или месяцев. Трейдеры же на колебаниях, например на рынке акций, обычно удерживают позиции сроком от нескольких дней до двух или трех недель – т.е. это промежуточный вари­ант между теми двумя крайностями, и они будут торговать на основе внутри-недельных или внутри-месячных колеба­ний между оптимизмом и пессимизмом рынка.

Стили торговли

Прежде, чем мы перейдем к торговле на колебаниях, давайте рассмотрим другие основные стили торговли:

  • Скальпирование

Скальпирование – это вид торговли. при котором трейдер совершает множество сделок в течение торгового дня. пы­таясь собрать (скальпировать) небольшую прибыль с каж­дой сделки, используя краткосрочные колебания рынка.

  • Импульсная торговля

При импульсной торговле трейдеры стараются найти рынки, которые сильно двигаются в одном направлении на большом объеме, и пытаются вскочить в это движение, что­бы захватить часть прибыли.

  • Техническая торговля

Технические трейдеры изучают ценовые графики, на­блюдая за линиями и индикаторами на графиках рынков для поиска признаков совпадения или расхождения между ними, что могло бы стать сигналом для покупки или продажи.

  • Фундаментальная торговля

Фундаментальные трейдеры торгуют рыночными инст­рументами, основываясь на фундаментальном анализе, под­робно исследуя новостные события, вроде фактических или ожидаемых данных по инфляции, доходам компаний, внешнеэкономическому балансу, информации о слияниях и поглощениях и т.д.

Правильный рынок

Первый ключ к успешной торговле на колебаниях заклю­чается в правильном выборе рынка. Лучшими кандидатами для этого являются высоколиквидные инструменты, которые активно торгуются на основных финансовых рынках. На ак­тивных рынках, цена этих инструментов будет колебаться между широко-определенными максимальными и мини­мальными экстремальными значениями, и трейдер может «прокатиться на волне» в одном направлении в течение не­скольких дней или недель, чтобы затем переключиться на тор­говлю в противоположную сторону, когда цена развернется.

Следует отметить, что в ситуациях ярко-выраженного медвежьего или бычьего рынка торговля на колебаниях может выглядеть совершенно по-другому, нежели между этими двумя экстремальными состояниями рынка. В этих экстремальных состояниях, даже самые активные рынки не будут показывать такие же колебания, что при относительно устойчивом положении в течение нескольких недель или месяцев. На сильном бычьем или медвежьем рынке импульс будет вести цены в одном направлении в течение длительно­го периода времени, и лучшая стратегия, таким образом, будет заключаться в том. чтобы торговать на основе долго­срочного направленного тренда.

Поэтому торговлю на колебаниях лучше всего осуществ­лять, когда рынки никуда не идут – цена повышается в тече­ние нескольких дней и затем снижается следующие несколь­ко дней, снова и снова повторяя ту же самую модель. Иног­да на фондовом рынке может пройти несколько месяцев, а основные акции и индексы будут оставаться примерно на тех же самых уровнях, но трейдер на колебаниях будет иметь много возможностей захватить краткосрочные движения вверх и вниз (иногда в пределах ценового канала).

Конечно, проблема и с торговлей на колебаниях и с тор­говлей на долгосрочных трендах заключается в правильной идентификации, с каким рынком мы имеем дело в настоя­щее время. Например, торговля на колебаниях, вероятно, лучше всего подходила бы для 2004 и 2005 года, в то время как торговля на трендах была бы идеальной стратегией для бычьего рынка 2006 и 2007гг.

Техническое обоснование

Большинство исследований исторических данных доказа­ло. что. например, на фондовом рынке, который бы подхо­дил для торговли на колебаниях, ликвидные акции имеют тенденцию торговаться выше и ниже среднего значения, которое отражается на графике экспоненциальной Скользящей средней (ЕМА). В своей книге «Трейдинг с доктором Элдером» Александр Элдер использует свое понимание поведения акций выше и ниже средней цены, чтобы описать стратегию торговли на колебаниях как «покупка в зоне нор­мальных цен и закрытие в стадии эйфории» или «продажа в зоне нормальных цен и закрытие в стадии депрессии». Как только трейдер на колебаниях использовал ЕМА для идентифи­кации типичного основания на ценовом графике, он идет в длинную сторону в районе средних значений, когда цена направ­ляется вверх и в короткую сторону, когда цена двигается вниз.

Таким образом, трейдеры на колебаниях не рассчитыва­ют захватить большое движение на отдельной сделке – они не обеспокоены идеальным выбором времени, чтобы совер­шить покупку точно у основания и совершить продажу точно у вершины. В реальной торговой среде они ждут, чтобы рынок достиг своего основания и подтвердил последующее направление, прежде чем заключать сделку. Ситуация ус­ложняется. когда в игре более сильный восходящий или нис­ходящий тренд: трейдер может, как это ни парадоксально, пойти в длинную сторону, когда цена опускается ниже сво­ей ЕМА и ждать пока возобновится восходящий тренд. Либо он может заключить короткую сделку, когда цена продвинет­ся выше ЕМА и ждать последующего снижения, если более долгосрочный тренд является нисходящим.

Взятие прибыли

Когда приходит время фиксировать прибыль, трейдеру на колебаниях желательно выйти из рынка как можно ближе к верхней или нижней линии канала, хотя и не стремясь к чрезмерной точности, чтобы не рисковать в случае отсут­ствия лучшей возможности. На сильном рынке, котла на­блюдается ярко-выраженный тренд, трейдеры могут дож­даться достижения линии канала, чтобы зафиксировать при­быль. но на более слабом рынке они могут предпочесть зафиксировать прибыть прежде, чем линия будет достигнута (в случае, когда направление изменилось, и линия не была достигнута на этом конкретном колебании).

Заключение

Торговля на колебаниях, фактически, является одним из лучших стилей торговли для начинающих трейдеров, при этом предполагая существенный потенциал прибыли и для продвинутых трейдеров. Трейдеры на колебаниях получают достаточную обратную связь по своим сделкам после не­скольких дней, чтобы поддержать их мотивацию, но их длин­ные и короткие позиции длятся всего пару дней, что не вы­зывает отчаяния. Напротив, трендовая торговля предполага­ет больший потенциал прибыли, если трейдер способен поймать недельный или месячный рыночный тренд, но очень немногие трейдеры обладают достаточной дисципли­ной. чтобы удержать торговлю позицию в течение такого периода времени, сохраняя при этом необходимую концен­трацию. С другой стороны, заключение по несколько сделок в день (при внутри-дневной торговле) может оказаться для некоторых трейдеров чересчур напряженным занятием, что делает торговлю на колебаниях «золотой серединой» между этими двумя крайностями.

Источник: журнал Forex Magazine.




Copyright © 2011, Nysetrader.net- блог о торговле акциями на фондовом рынке США.
Все права защищены. |
Постоянная ссылка |
Комментарии: нет

Вы также можете ознакомиться с другими материалами рубрики Обучение.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Автор nysetrader.net    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
28
0

ASDF

Нужно выучить правила игры.
А затем, начать играть лучше всех
(с) А. Эйнштейн

За 4 года я видимо еще не все правила выучил..

ЕСЛИ СЕГОДНЯ ПО СИСТЕМЕ ДОЛЖЕН БЫТЬ УДАРНЫЙ ДЕНЬ - НЕ#УЙ ИГРАТЬ ВНУТРИ ДНЯ. Ни в сторону движения, ни против, вообще не надо делать сделок. Никаких. Иначе в итоге ты либо останешься без позы когда всё будет улетать, либо меньшим сайзом, либо нафиксишь убытков кучей сделок.

Держал лонг еще с начала четверга. В пятницу перед статой вышел изза того, что увидел паттерн, который повторялся регулярно в последнее время с вероятностью в 90%.. Типа я хотел и движение всё взять и откат ложный и зайти повыгоднее и всё на свете)

И кстати сказать, там был не один паттерн (если четверг включить). Но я, идиота кусок, до сих пор не усвоил, что "ударный день" или просто сильный импульс из-за этого то как раз и происходит, что все паттерны на разворот\откат формируются, но не срабатывают)) И именно это и даёт ускорение.. т.к. если кто не заходит против движения, то хотя бы сбрасывает свою прибыльную позицию раньше времени.. А потом все этот поезд и догоняют))

Именно поэтому то, если у тебя день ударный - нехуй высматривать там что-то внутри дня. Т.к. всё что ты можешь высмотреть - всё будет направлено на то, что бы тебя наебать)) бугыгы)) Стоп в Б\У - и нахуйсрынка до вечера.

Еще понравилось... В аккурат про биржу.
"Потому что если что-то случается - это обязательно кого-то разводят)"  (с) Задорнов)

----------------------
p.S.
И кстати не вытянул я всё таки свой  февральский MT- 2.11...  Волатильность закончилась. Торговать там нечего пока.. График позже выложу.

Автор My-trade    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
27
0

Интересная статья Mary Meeker

Wire: BLOOMBERG News (BN) Date: Feb 24 2011 8:50:02
USA Inc.’s ‘Shareholders’ Face $44 Trillion Hole, Meeker Says

(Mary Meeker, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield &
Byers, studied the U.S. as a company with shareholders, a
balance sheet and competitive pressures. She shared her
conclusions in a letter to taxpayers published in Bloomberg
Businessweek’s Feb. 28 edition.)

By Mary Meeker
Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Dear Shareholder,
You probably don’t think of yourself that way. Citizenship
isn’t an investment, it’s a state of being. But by birth or
naturalization, every American has more than just an emotional
stake in the U.S. We have a financial one, too. And by any
measure, that stake is at risk.
Two months ago the federal government issued a 268-page
Financial Report of the United States Government. It doesn’t
have a glossy cover with photos of smiling employees, and a lot
of the numbers are in trillions. Except for that, it looks a lot
like the corporate annual reports of the companies I have
followed. You can see how the various lines of business are
doing -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. There’s even a mission
statement: “to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity.”
The United States isn’t a corporation, of course. It can’t
exit from underperforming territories (pick your state) or
auction off lines of business (the Army, Medicare). And its
“customers” can reward themselves with unaffordable services
because they’re also the shareholders.

$2 Trillion Loss

Still, the idea of the U.S. as a corporation is more than a
thought-experiment. It’s a way to reposition our approach to
long-term problems. What would USA Inc. be worth? Who would want
to buy its shares? And what would a turnaround expert recommend
for a company that lost more than $2 trillion (“net operating
cost”) in 2010?
I took a deep dive into these questions a little more than
a year ago, and I’m finally up for air. I reached three
conclusions. First, USA Inc. has serious financial challenges.
Second, its problems are fixable. Third, clear communication
with citizen-shareholders is essential. If the American people
embrace the need for bold action, their political leaders should
find the courage to do what’s right.
What you’ll see on the following pages is hard to
misinterpret: We have big issues, but the U.S. is in sounder
shape than Apple Inc. was in 1997, when it lost a billion
dollars. That’s the year Steve Jobs returned as chief executive
officer and took extreme measures, including agreeing to make
Internet Explorer the Mac’s default browser.

Apple’s Lifeline

Jobs also got Microsoft to buy $150 million in nonvoting
Apple shares -- a lifeline for a company that, according to Jobs
himself, was 90 days from bankruptcy court. Apple is now the
second-most valuable company in the world.
I’m the lady whom Barron’s called the Queen of the Net in
1998. Over the past quarter-century I’ve covered tech companies
that have created more than 200,000 jobs worldwide, including
Apple, Microsoft Corp., Dell Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc.,
and EBay Inc. I worked for Morgan Stanley from 1991 until
November 2010, when I became a partner at the venture capital
firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on government finance, and
I’m not interested in taking sides in the political debates over
spending and taxes. Pragmatism is my trade, and information is
my toolbox.

USA Inc.’s Origin

Since 2007 I had been salting my annual Internet forecasts
with slides about trends in the broader U.S. economy.
(Occasionally Silicon Valley needs to be reminded that it’s not
a sovereign nation.) For the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco in
October 2009, I zeroed in on the financial health of the federal
government and asked one of the savviest members of my research
team, Liang Wu, to pull together a pro forma income statement
for what we called USA Inc.
So began a moonlighting project that became an obsession
and drew on the voluntary efforts of many Morgan Stanley experts
as well as senior people in business and government. All of our
information came from public data sources, including the
Treasury Department, the White House Office of Management and
Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office. Other key sources
were the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the International Monetary Fund and Morgan Stanley’s own
published research. Wu and I brought the project along with us
when we became partners at Kleiner Perkins.

The ‘Deliverable’

Now I’m ready to go public with what we in tech like to
call the “deliverable.” In addition to what follows on these
pages, there’s a 460-slide PowerPoint presentation. You can find
it at www.businessweek.com/go/11/usainc/ or www.kpcb.com/usainc
or get it in book form via Amazon.com.
The bottom line on USA Inc.? Cash flow and net worth are
negative, profits are rare, and off-balance-sheet liabilities
are enormous. The “company” has underinvested in productive
capital, education, and technology -- the very tools needed to
compete in the global marketplace. Lenders have been patient so
far, but the sky-high rates on the sovereign debt of Greece,
Ireland and Portugal suggest what might lie ahead for USA Inc.
shareholders and our children.
By our rough estimate, USA Inc. has a net worth of negative
$44 trillion. That comes to $143,000 per capita. Negative. To be
fair, the net worth calculation leaves out some assets,
including, most importantly, the power to tax. Which simply
means that the government can improve its own finances by
worsening those of its citizen-shareholders.

Health Costs

Medicare and Medicaid are the crushers for USA Inc.
Excluding them and one-time charges, the “core business” shows
a median net profit margin of 4 percent over the past 15 years.
USA Inc.’s core operations were in surplus nine of those years.
In the early years of the Republic, the only entitlements were
military pensions. The big change came with the 1930s and World
War II, when the federal government substantially expanded its
role in the economy (in effect, its “business lines”).
Entitlements experienced a surge in the Great Society of
the 1960s. Since 1965, the nation’s gross domestic product has
increased about 2.7 times over, but entitlement expenses have
increased 11.1 times over. What do Americans have to show for
it? Evidence suggests that when the government provides,
families do less for themselves: There is an 82 percent
correlation between rising entitlement spending and falling
personal savings rates. With the aging of my baby boom
generation, things will get even worse.

Unsustainable Path

Let me share one statistic that shocked me, from the Long-
Term Budget Outlook published last year by the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office. If current trends continue, the CBO
says, entitlement spending and net interest payments combined
will equal all of federal revenue by 2025, just 14 years from
now. (This is based on the CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario,
which assumes extension of the Bush tax cuts and other actions,
such as a gradual increase in Medicare payment rates to
physicians, that are widely expected to occur.) Back in 1999,
the crossover point was not supposed to happen until 2060.
Imagine: no Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast
Guard, no federal courts or prisons, no National Park Service,
no Food & Drug Administration, no embassies, no salaries for
Congress. That’s what it would take to balance the budget by
2025 and still pay interest on America’s debts, without either
raising revenue or reducing entitlement growth. That’s certainly
not a recognizable America.
My point is not to scare people. To me, the first and most
important step in solving a problem is communicating its
severity. That’s what smart businesspeople do.

Cost Management

“If your organization is in trouble, be honest,” critical
care physician Dr. Jon Meliones, then chief medical director at
Duke Children’s Hospital & Health Center, wrote in a 2000
Harvard Business Review piece on how the hospital recovered from
big losses. “Make it absolutely clear to everyone in the
company that survival depends on cost management.”
Today’s political leaders could learn something about the
fortitude that will be required from Stephen Elop, the former
Microsoft executive who was hired last September by Nokia Oyj as
its first non-Finnish CEO. Elop, a 47-year-old Canadian,
realized that Nokia’s Symbian smartphone operating system was
losing ground to Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS.
Instead of sticking with a failed strategy, he swallowed
corporate pride and switched to Microsoft’s Windows as Nokia’s
primary operating system. In his memo to employees he told the
story of a man who saved his life by jumping into the frigid
North Sea from an oil platform that caught fire. “Nokia,” he
wrote, “our platform is burning.”

R&D Spending

When companies’ backs are to the wall, the knee-jerk
reaction is to cut everything. But good business leaders
preserve spending on research and development because eating
one’s seed corn is self-defeating. The same goes for USA Inc.
Government spending to develop ARPANET in the 1970s led to the
Internet. Without that, there might be no eBay, Facebook Inc.,
Google, or Yahoo! Inc. today.
In the 1980s the Defense Department set up the global
positioning system network of satellites (GPS), which now helps
parents get their kids to away games on time -- and is still
owned and operated by the federal government.
Social welfare spending and future-oriented spending are
often presented as rival options. In the long run, they aren’t.
One of the best ways to ensure that the U.S. has the wherewithal
to support its poor and elderly shareholders in the future is to
invest now in R&D, infrastructure and educational support.

Global Competition

Such investments should enable USA Inc. to compete better
with China Inc., Korea Inc., and India Inc., all of whom would
love to eat our lunch. From 2000 to 2010, China’s GDP per capita
rose 216 percent (based on the yuan’s actual buying power rather
than exchange rates). India’s per capita output increased 117
percent; America’s, just 34 percent. Factoid: USA Inc.’s
entitlement spending equals India’s entire GDP.
Right now we’re headed in the wrong direction on
investment. By our calculations, an important crossover occurred
around 1990: Combined federal, state and local spending on
health care exceeded spending on education for the first time.
Since then the education funding deficit has steadily widened.
That may be one reason American students have fallen out of the
lead on international standardized tests. In 2009, American 15-
year-olds ranked 17th in science and 25th in math out of 34 OECD
nations. (If it’s any consolation, they’re at or near the top in
self-confidence.) Any CEO will tell you that it’s impossible to
be best in class with a workforce that’s outclassed.

Medicare Spending

The huge sums that the federal government lays out for
Medicare and Medicaid would be easier to stomach if people
believed the money was well spent; the evidence is that it’s
not. By one measure, the correlation between life expectancy and
per capita health-care spending, the U.S. is an extreme outlier,
spending far more than any other country, with mediocre results
for life expectancy. (See Fig. 3.) If the objective is to
maximize bang for the buck -- i.e., to produce healthy years of
life with the greatest possible efficiency -- then it’s worth
questioning whether it makes sense to devote 28 percent of
Medicare spending to recipients’ final year of life, as the U.S.
did in 2008.
Once you understand USA Inc.’s main problems, the solutions
become almost self-evident. The PowerPoint version of our
presentation contains dozens of ideas that seem worthy of
consideration, even though we take no sides on particular
legislative proposals. Nearly all of these ideas have been
floated before by other groups, including the Congressional
Budget Office and President Obama’s bipartisan National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Entitlement Programs

Because Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest challenges to
USA Inc.’s solvency, fixing their finances has to be at the top
of the agenda. By the way, simply off-loading expenses from the
government onto the citizenry doesn’t constitute a solution,
because we are the government. Genuine improvement requires
slowing, and in some cases reducing, combined public and private
spending through efficiency and better incentives. That requires
asking questions such as: Should government reduce the incentive
for doctors to practice wasteful defensive medicine by capping
noneconomic damage awards for malpractice? And should Medicare
be allowed to consider cost-effectiveness in national coverage
decisions, as it does not now?
Social Security has fewer moving parts, which makes it the
easier entitlement to fix -- at least conceptually. Again, we’re
not making recommendations, but a further increase in the
retirement age seems a likely part of any serious solution.
Since Social Security’s creation in 1935, life expectancy has
increased 26 percent, to age 78, while the system’s normal
retirement age has gone up just 3 percent, to 67.

Key Questions

There’s a lot that can be done to make USA Inc. operate
like a well-run business. A corporate turnaround specialist
would quickly hire an independent firm to conduct an audit of
each business line. Is each line operating at maximum
efficiency? Where should we invest and where should we scale
back? Are good performance metrics and financial controls in
place? Can more processes be automated and optimized? Should
some assets be sold? Why not hire a compensation consultant to
see whether federal workers are overpaid vs. private-sector
counterparts? Why not pay bonuses to federal employees who meet
deficit-reduction goals? Why not give the president the line-
item veto, allowing him or her to carve the pork out of
otherwise worthy legislation?
I hope it’s clear by now that USA Inc. has a spending
problem, not a revenue problem. Simple math says that balancing
the budget purely by raising taxes would require doubling rates
across the board, which would kill growth. That said, tax
revenues probably have to go up a little.

Tax Changes

Another option, again using simple math, would be to scale
back deductions and tax credits, which cost nearly $1 trillion a
year in forgone revenue. Reducing the deductibility of home
mortgage interest, for example, would raise tax revenue without
higher tax rates. As a form of investment with long-term
payoffs, construction of houses does not rank particularly high.
There are compelling reasons we don’t tackle these
questions regularly: The answers usually involve some form of
political suicide. That’s a good argument for putting more
energy into the very best way to fix USA Inc.’s finances --
namely, by getting the economy to grow more rapidly. Instead of
bickering about which deck chair to throw overboard to lighten
the load, Congress should focus on getting USA Inc. growing
again. The key to growth, in turn, is higher productivity
through investment in technology, infrastructure and education.
Higher labor productivity means more useful output for the same
60 minutes of work. It’s the ultimate source of prosperity.

Stronger Growth

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that USA Inc.
could reach break-even without policy changes if economic growth
were to average 6 percent to 7 percent in 2012-14 and 4 percent
to 5 percent in 2015-20. That’s well above the 40-year average
growth rate of 3 percent, and it simply won’t happen. But even a
small jump in the growth rate would ease the pain of austerity.
We can take comfort as citizens and shareholders that USA
Inc.’s asset base and entrepreneurial culture are strong. In 25
years of studying tech companies and working in financial
services, I’ve discovered that people will sacrifice if they
have a clear idea of what their sacrifices can accomplish. I
think the same goes for USA Inc.
Earlier I mentioned Apple’s miraculous resurrection under
Steve Jobs. We have a more recent, more unlikely comeback that
can serve as an example for the future.

GM’s Rebirth

In 2009 General Motors Co., the largest U.S. automaker and
an American icon, filed for bankruptcy. The federal government
became the majority shareholder. GM killed or sold off Pontiac,
Saab, Hummer, and Saturn, laid off thousands of workers, gave
bondholders a haircut, and swapped stock for cash in the retiree
health-care trust. The company got a new lease on life; it’s
marketing smarter and introducing popular models like the Chevy
Equinox and Cadillac SRX. This past November it floated a $20
billion IPO. It’s selling the electric Chevy Volt. And on Feb.
15, GM said it would roll out more than 20 new or upgraded
models in China, where it’s the No. 1 foreign automaker.
No one would recommend that USA Inc. follow a similarvalid2117 hd50e2467da78835029c0c16b59235660 Интересная статья Mary Meeker
course of slashing, burning, and stiffing bondholders. Still,
it’s encouraging to see how a company that’s been given up for
dead can come back strong. USA Inc. needs to prime itself for
the same kind of renewal--and prepare for brutal decisions that
change how we do business. In Democracy in America, published in
1835, the French observer Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: “The
greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any
other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”
Let the turnaround begin!

Автор osmar92    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
27
0

Интересная статья Mary Meeker

Wire: BLOOMBERG News (BN) Date: Feb 24 2011 8:50:02
USA Inc.’s ‘Shareholders’ Face $44 Trillion Hole, Meeker Says

(Mary Meeker, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield &
Byers, studied the U.S. as a company with shareholders, a
balance sheet and competitive pressures. She shared her
conclusions in a letter to taxpayers published in Bloomberg
Businessweek’s Feb. 28 edition.)

By Mary Meeker
Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Dear Shareholder,
You probably don’t think of yourself that way. Citizenship
isn’t an investment, it’s a state of being. But by birth or
naturalization, every American has more than just an emotional
stake in the U.S. We have a financial one, too. And by any
measure, that stake is at risk.
Two months ago the federal government issued a 268-page
Financial Report of the United States Government. It doesn’t
have a glossy cover with photos of smiling employees, and a lot
of the numbers are in trillions. Except for that, it looks a lot
like the corporate annual reports of the companies I have
followed. You can see how the various lines of business are
doing -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. There’s even a mission
statement: “to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity.”
The United States isn’t a corporation, of course. It can’t
exit from underperforming territories (pick your state) or
auction off lines of business (the Army, Medicare). And its
“customers” can reward themselves with unaffordable services
because they’re also the shareholders.

$2 Trillion Loss

Still, the idea of the U.S. as a corporation is more than a
thought-experiment. It’s a way to reposition our approach to
long-term problems. What would USA Inc. be worth? Who would want
to buy its shares? And what would a turnaround expert recommend
for a company that lost more than $2 trillion (“net operating
cost”) in 2010?
I took a deep dive into these questions a little more than
a year ago, and I’m finally up for air. I reached three
conclusions. First, USA Inc. has serious financial challenges.
Second, its problems are fixable. Third, clear communication
with citizen-shareholders is essential. If the American people
embrace the need for bold action, their political leaders should
find the courage to do what’s right.
What you’ll see on the following pages is hard to
misinterpret: We have big issues, but the U.S. is in sounder
shape than Apple Inc. was in 1997, when it lost a billion
dollars. That’s the year Steve Jobs returned as chief executive
officer and took extreme measures, including agreeing to make
Internet Explorer the Mac’s default browser.

Apple’s Lifeline

Jobs also got Microsoft to buy $150 million in nonvoting
Apple shares -- a lifeline for a company that, according to Jobs
himself, was 90 days from bankruptcy court. Apple is now the
second-most valuable company in the world.
I’m the lady whom Barron’s called the Queen of the Net in
1998. Over the past quarter-century I’ve covered tech companies
that have created more than 200,000 jobs worldwide, including
Apple, Microsoft Corp., Dell Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc.,
and EBay Inc. I worked for Morgan Stanley from 1991 until
November 2010, when I became a partner at the venture capital
firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on government finance, and
I’m not interested in taking sides in the political debates over
spending and taxes. Pragmatism is my trade, and information is
my toolbox.

USA Inc.’s Origin

Since 2007 I had been salting my annual Internet forecasts
with slides about trends in the broader U.S. economy.
(Occasionally Silicon Valley needs to be reminded that it’s not
a sovereign nation.) For the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco in
October 2009, I zeroed in on the financial health of the federal
government and asked one of the savviest members of my research
team, Liang Wu, to pull together a pro forma income statement
for what we called USA Inc.
So began a moonlighting project that became an obsession
and drew on the voluntary efforts of many Morgan Stanley experts
as well as senior people in business and government. All of our
information came from public data sources, including the
Treasury Department, the White House Office of Management and
Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office. Other key sources
were the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the International Monetary Fund and Morgan Stanley’s own
published research. Wu and I brought the project along with us
when we became partners at Kleiner Perkins.

The ‘Deliverable’

Now I’m ready to go public with what we in tech like to
call the “deliverable.” In addition to what follows on these
pages, there’s a 460-slide PowerPoint presentation. You can find
it at www.businessweek.com/go/11/usainc/ or www.kpcb.com/usainc
or get it in book form via Amazon.com.
The bottom line on USA Inc.? Cash flow and net worth are
negative, profits are rare, and off-balance-sheet liabilities
are enormous. The “company” has underinvested in productive
capital, education, and technology -- the very tools needed to
compete in the global marketplace. Lenders have been patient so
far, but the sky-high rates on the sovereign debt of Greece,
Ireland and Portugal suggest what might lie ahead for USA Inc.
shareholders and our children.
By our rough estimate, USA Inc. has a net worth of negative
$44 trillion. That comes to $143,000 per capita. Negative. To be
fair, the net worth calculation leaves out some assets,
including, most importantly, the power to tax. Which simply
means that the government can improve its own finances by
worsening those of its citizen-shareholders.

Health Costs

Medicare and Medicaid are the crushers for USA Inc.
Excluding them and one-time charges, the “core business” shows
a median net profit margin of 4 percent over the past 15 years.
USA Inc.’s core operations were in surplus nine of those years.
In the early years of the Republic, the only entitlements were
military pensions. The big change came with the 1930s and World
War II, when the federal government substantially expanded its
role in the economy (in effect, its “business lines”).
Entitlements experienced a surge in the Great Society of
the 1960s. Since 1965, the nation’s gross domestic product has
increased about 2.7 times over, but entitlement expenses have
increased 11.1 times over. What do Americans have to show for
it? Evidence suggests that when the government provides,
families do less for themselves: There is an 82 percent
correlation between rising entitlement spending and falling
personal savings rates. With the aging of my baby boom
generation, things will get even worse.

Unsustainable Path

Let me share one statistic that shocked me, from the Long-
Term Budget Outlook published last year by the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office. If current trends continue, the CBO
says, entitlement spending and net interest payments combined
will equal all of federal revenue by 2025, just 14 years from
now. (This is based on the CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario,
which assumes extension of the Bush tax cuts and other actions,
such as a gradual increase in Medicare payment rates to
physicians, that are widely expected to occur.) Back in 1999,
the crossover point was not supposed to happen until 2060.
Imagine: no Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast
Guard, no federal courts or prisons, no National Park Service,
no Food & Drug Administration, no embassies, no salaries for
Congress. That’s what it would take to balance the budget by
2025 and still pay interest on America’s debts, without either
raising revenue or reducing entitlement growth. That’s certainly
not a recognizable America.
My point is not to scare people. To me, the first and most
important step in solving a problem is communicating its
severity. That’s what smart businesspeople do.

Cost Management

“If your organization is in trouble, be honest,” critical
care physician Dr. Jon Meliones, then chief medical director at
Duke Children’s Hospital & Health Center, wrote in a 2000
Harvard Business Review piece on how the hospital recovered from
big losses. “Make it absolutely clear to everyone in the
company that survival depends on cost management.”
Today’s political leaders could learn something about the
fortitude that will be required from Stephen Elop, the former
Microsoft executive who was hired last September by Nokia Oyj as
its first non-Finnish CEO. Elop, a 47-year-old Canadian,
realized that Nokia’s Symbian smartphone operating system was
losing ground to Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS.
Instead of sticking with a failed strategy, he swallowed
corporate pride and switched to Microsoft’s Windows as Nokia’s
primary operating system. In his memo to employees he told the
story of a man who saved his life by jumping into the frigid
North Sea from an oil platform that caught fire. “Nokia,” he
wrote, “our platform is burning.”

R&D Spending

When companies’ backs are to the wall, the knee-jerk
reaction is to cut everything. But good business leaders
preserve spending on research and development because eating
one’s seed corn is self-defeating. The same goes for USA Inc.
Government spending to develop ARPANET in the 1970s led to the
Internet. Without that, there might be no eBay, Facebook Inc.,
Google, or Yahoo! Inc. today.
In the 1980s the Defense Department set up the global
positioning system network of satellites (GPS), which now helps
parents get their kids to away games on time -- and is still
owned and operated by the federal government.
Social welfare spending and future-oriented spending are
often presented as rival options. In the long run, they aren’t.
One of the best ways to ensure that the U.S. has the wherewithal
to support its poor and elderly shareholders in the future is to
invest now in R&D, infrastructure and educational support.

Global Competition

Such investments should enable USA Inc. to compete better
with China Inc., Korea Inc., and India Inc., all of whom would
love to eat our lunch. From 2000 to 2010, China’s GDP per capita
rose 216 percent (based on the yuan’s actual buying power rather
than exchange rates). India’s per capita output increased 117
percent; America’s, just 34 percent. Factoid: USA Inc.’s
entitlement spending equals India’s entire GDP.
Right now we’re headed in the wrong direction on
investment. By our calculations, an important crossover occurred
around 1990: Combined federal, state and local spending on
health care exceeded spending on education for the first time.
Since then the education funding deficit has steadily widened.
That may be one reason American students have fallen out of the
lead on international standardized tests. In 2009, American 15-
year-olds ranked 17th in science and 25th in math out of 34 OECD
nations. (If it’s any consolation, they’re at or near the top in
self-confidence.) Any CEO will tell you that it’s impossible to
be best in class with a workforce that’s outclassed.

Medicare Spending

The huge sums that the federal government lays out for
Medicare and Medicaid would be easier to stomach if people
believed the money was well spent; the evidence is that it’s
not. By one measure, the correlation between life expectancy and
per capita health-care spending, the U.S. is an extreme outlier,
spending far more than any other country, with mediocre results
for life expectancy. (See Fig. 3.) If the objective is to
maximize bang for the buck -- i.e., to produce healthy years of
life with the greatest possible efficiency -- then it’s worth
questioning whether it makes sense to devote 28 percent of
Medicare spending to recipients’ final year of life, as the U.S.
did in 2008.
Once you understand USA Inc.’s main problems, the solutions
become almost self-evident. The PowerPoint version of our
presentation contains dozens of ideas that seem worthy of
consideration, even though we take no sides on particular
legislative proposals. Nearly all of these ideas have been
floated before by other groups, including the Congressional
Budget Office and President Obama’s bipartisan National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Entitlement Programs

Because Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest challenges to
USA Inc.’s solvency, fixing their finances has to be at the top
of the agenda. By the way, simply off-loading expenses from the
government onto the citizenry doesn’t constitute a solution,
because we are the government. Genuine improvement requires
slowing, and in some cases reducing, combined public and private
spending through efficiency and better incentives. That requires
asking questions such as: Should government reduce the incentive
for doctors to practice wasteful defensive medicine by capping
noneconomic damage awards for malpractice? And should Medicare
be allowed to consider cost-effectiveness in national coverage
decisions, as it does not now?
Social Security has fewer moving parts, which makes it the
easier entitlement to fix -- at least conceptually. Again, we’re
not making recommendations, but a further increase in the
retirement age seems a likely part of any serious solution.
Since Social Security’s creation in 1935, life expectancy has
increased 26 percent, to age 78, while the system’s normal
retirement age has gone up just 3 percent, to 67.

Key Questions

There’s a lot that can be done to make USA Inc. operate
like a well-run business. A corporate turnaround specialist
would quickly hire an independent firm to conduct an audit of
each business line. Is each line operating at maximum
efficiency? Where should we invest and where should we scale
back? Are good performance metrics and financial controls in
place? Can more processes be automated and optimized? Should
some assets be sold? Why not hire a compensation consultant to
see whether federal workers are overpaid vs. private-sector
counterparts? Why not pay bonuses to federal employees who meet
deficit-reduction goals? Why not give the president the line-
item veto, allowing him or her to carve the pork out of
otherwise worthy legislation?
I hope it’s clear by now that USA Inc. has a spending
problem, not a revenue problem. Simple math says that balancing
the budget purely by raising taxes would require doubling rates
across the board, which would kill growth. That said, tax
revenues probably have to go up a little.

Tax Changes

Another option, again using simple math, would be to scale
back deductions and tax credits, which cost nearly $1 trillion a
year in forgone revenue. Reducing the deductibility of home
mortgage interest, for example, would raise tax revenue without
higher tax rates. As a form of investment with long-term
payoffs, construction of houses does not rank particularly high.
There are compelling reasons we don’t tackle these
questions regularly: The answers usually involve some form of
political suicide. That’s a good argument for putting more
energy into the very best way to fix USA Inc.’s finances --
namely, by getting the economy to grow more rapidly. Instead of
bickering about which deck chair to throw overboard to lighten
the load, Congress should focus on getting USA Inc. growing
again. The key to growth, in turn, is higher productivity
through investment in technology, infrastructure and education.
Higher labor productivity means more useful output for the same
60 minutes of work. It’s the ultimate source of prosperity.

Stronger Growth

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that USA Inc.
could reach break-even without policy changes if economic growth
were to average 6 percent to 7 percent in 2012-14 and 4 percent
to 5 percent in 2015-20. That’s well above the 40-year average
growth rate of 3 percent, and it simply won’t happen. But even a
small jump in the growth rate would ease the pain of austerity.
We can take comfort as citizens and shareholders that USA
Inc.’s asset base and entrepreneurial culture are strong. In 25
years of studying tech companies and working in financial
services, I’ve discovered that people will sacrifice if they
have a clear idea of what their sacrifices can accomplish. I
think the same goes for USA Inc.
Earlier I mentioned Apple’s miraculous resurrection under
Steve Jobs. We have a more recent, more unlikely comeback that
can serve as an example for the future.

GM’s Rebirth

In 2009 General Motors Co., the largest U.S. automaker and
an American icon, filed for bankruptcy. The federal government
became the majority shareholder. GM killed or sold off Pontiac,
Saab, Hummer, and Saturn, laid off thousands of workers, gave
bondholders a haircut, and swapped stock for cash in the retiree
health-care trust. The company got a new lease on life; it’s
marketing smarter and introducing popular models like the Chevy
Equinox and Cadillac SRX. This past November it floated a $20
billion IPO. It’s selling the electric Chevy Volt. And on Feb.
15, GM said it would roll out more than 20 new or upgraded
models in China, where it’s the No. 1 foreign automaker.
No one would recommend that USA Inc. follow a similarvalid2117 hd50e2467da78835029c0c16b59235660 Интересная статья Mary Meeker
course of slashing, burning, and stiffing bondholders. Still,
it’s encouraging to see how a company that’s been given up for
dead can come back strong. USA Inc. needs to prime itself for
the same kind of renewal--and prepare for brutal decisions that
change how we do business. In Democracy in America, published in
1835, the French observer Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: “The
greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any
other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”
Let the turnaround begin!

Автор osmar92    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
27
0

my_trade @ 2011-02-27T14:04:00

*обновил пред пост про воскресение*

Автор My-trade    Рубрики МегаБлог
Фев
27
0

my_trade @ 2011-02-27T14:04:00

*обновил пред пост про воскресение*

Автор My-trade    Рубрики МегаБлог

Чтобы первыми узнавать последние новости советуем вам подписаться на RSS. Если вы используете стандартные rss клиенты, можете кликнуть по ссылками ниже и читать новости в них, либо получать обновления на почту или твиттер:

  • Читать в Google Reader
  • Читать в Яндекс.Ленте
  • Читать в LiveJournal
  • Получать обновления на почту
  • Получать оповещения в twitter
Следуйте за мной на Twitter! Следуйте за мной на Twitter!
Для того, чтоб принять участие в общем чате трейдеров, напишите мне в Skype:

NyseTrade

или посетите форум

NyseForum.ru

Облако тегов

Свежие комментарии