• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании2331
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации81
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы129
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
08 декабря, 14:01

Американский бизнес перешел на сторону Трампа

Более того, все пожертвования бизнесмены отправляли на предвыборную компанию Клинтон, а политика Трампа им виделась непредсказуемой. При этом генеральный директор страховой компании Aetna Марк Бертолини призвал бизнесменов признать победу Трампа и выстроить с ним конструктивное сотрудничество.

Выбор редакции
06 декабря, 16:02

If Paul Ryan Privatizes Medicare, Aetna-Humana Trial Looms Larger

The clout of the insurance industry - already on trial in the Aetna-Humana - merger could become greater if Republicans led by Paul Ryan further privatize Medicare health benefits for the elderly.

Выбор редакции
06 декабря, 03:37

Justice Dept. lawyer argues that Aetna-Humana deal would violate antitrust law

The agency filed a lawsuit in July asking the court to stop the $34 billion deal.

Выбор редакции
06 декабря, 03:36

Justice Dept. lawyer argues that Aetna-Humana deal would violate antitrust law

The agency filed a lawsuit in July asking the court to stop the $34 billion deal.

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
05 декабря, 02:38

The Week Ahead: Mexico to Auction Oil and Gas Blocks as Aetna Defends Merger in Court

Petróleos Mexicanos is seeking capital and expertise to develop deepwater reserves. In Washington, Aetna and Humana face opposition from the Justice Department over their proposed $37 billion deal.

30 ноября, 18:10

Stock Market News for November 30, 2016

Benchmarks ended higher on Tuesday, with the Nasdaq touching a record high after gains in health-care stocks offset losses in energy shares

30 ноября, 16:00

Why Top Management Should Listen to Activist Investors

Activist investors who expect to raise returns by influencing strategic decisions are having a meaningful impact on many industries from consumer-packaged goods to aerospace and defense. And the odds that your company, or industry, may find itself targeted by an activist are going up. Activists launched 159 campaigns in 2015 focused on shareholder value maximization, nearly double the 88 that were launched the year before. If you are a senior executive in a company concerned about activists, you have two potential paths: take the defensive (and perhaps expected) posture of defending your current strategy, or embrace the challenge and reassess your company’s path to value creation. Activists’ interventions are often described, favorably or not depending on your point of view, as slashing and burning, taking out cost, and engaging in financial engineering. But that’s an unfair oversimplification. Many activists are asking some very tough and fundamental strategic questions: Are the company’s investments in the right place?  Is the company’s portfolio too diverse?  Are there difficult moves that must be made to create a winning strategy?  Senior executives should consider these questions carefully, since the rise of corporate activism is unlikely to slow any time soon — either way — these very basic but important strategic questions must be addressed. Simply improving short-term performance by cutting costs across the board isn’t the answer – activists can do that themselves, simply by taking out 10% from your company’s cost baseline. You need to look at costs as strategic investments that ultimately drive growth: which costs, if cut, would actually destroy shareholder value by diminishing growth or competitive advantage? And as an insider with the right perspective and access to granular company data, you can match or exceed what outsiders may be able to offer your investors. Take the time to reassess your company’s path to value creation. You have clearly thought about these strategic questions before, but constraints on your business and short-term issues may have stood in the way of  the answers – or at least at looking at the questions as an outsider might, and possibly arriving at different conclusions about the business. Now, you will have to translate your strategic thinking into a value creation plan that your management team and board will embrace.  You will have to be clear-minded about such questions as: What are the simple approaches to value creation that have worked in the industry, and do they still apply? What advantage do we have — or can we create — in the market, and how do we maintain and extend this advantage? What is our company great at doing? What is our promise to the market and to customers? What is needed to execute against that promise? Defining your aspirations that way and combining them with the capabilities required to fulfill those aspirations will give your company the best chance to create long-term value … and to address activists’ concerns and capitalize on the opportunities and ideas they bring. For our recent book we studied companies from a broad range of industries that operate this way, including Apple, CEMEX, Danaher, Haier, IKEA, Inditex (known for its Zara apparel business), Starbucks and many others. These companies may do business in a dozen different sectors, but everything they do nonetheless fits together in a coherent way. Apple’s online services, smartphones, and computers, for example, all rely on the same capabilities for design and integration. Starbucks applies its capabilities in talent management and distinctive retailing to everything it does. Danaher designs, manufactures, and markets industrial and consumer products in industries including dental, industrial technologies, environmental, and life science and diagnostics, and has distinguished itself by its outstanding shareholder return and its focus on continual improvement, across all its businesses. When your company has developed that kind of clear identity, you have leverage and insight that other companies –and activist investors –do not have. When investor Carl Icahn wrote to Tim Cook in 2014, with concerns about insufficient cash growth and share undervaluation at Apple, Cook’s response was measured. He eventually did buy back stock and increase shareholder dividends, but his response about television and cars was such that Icahn stated publicly that whatever Tim Cook decided was completely Tim Cook’s decision. Danaher, similarly, has good relationships with activist investors. In fact, the company was formed by Steven and Mitchell Rales, who were corporate raiders and understood the value of coherence from the start. Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini described the positive impact of coherence on stock value: “The magic question is: Are your business fundamentals sound enough so that you can consistently deliver a product to customers that they will continue to buy over time? If people believe your business fundamentals are sustainable, it will move the stock price higher.” Some CEOs might resist this approach: they may feel locked into the constraints given to them, or may simply want to avoid the risk of change — hoping that potential disruption or industry structure changes that activists initiate will leave them unharmed. But we’ve seen that movie over and over, and we know how it ends. The better course is to build a case for your company’s fundamental advantage, and lay out your plans for improving it and driving value creation.

28 ноября, 21:46

Our Profiteering Health Insurance Industry: Should The Government Bail It Out Again?

Backtrack to 2008 to 2010, when the increasing costs and unaffordability of insurance and health care for Americans were a front-burner issue. They remain so today. Soon after coming into office, the new Obama administration worked for two years, in the name of health care "reform," to appease corporate stakeholders in our well-entrenched medical-industrial complex. The political question then was not what was in the best interests of patients and families, but how to gain the support of the major corporate players, especially the insurance, hospital, and drug industries. Following their huge campaign donations, sending more than 4,500 lobbyists to the Beltway (eight for every member of Congress) (1) and a rapidly revolving door of conflicts of interest, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or ACA and Obamacare) was passed by a narrow margin in Congress almost seven years ago. Today, it is obvious to all that patients are still not protected by good insurance coverage at affordable rates, and that the very name of the bill is a misnomer. The costs of health care keep rising at rapid rates as insurers, hospitals and drug companies blame others for these increases. None of these industries have contained costs as they pursue their business model of making profits, with their highest priority maximizing revenues for their CEOs and shareholders. As we are now seeing, insurers exit markets when they are not sufficiently profitable, even as health care stocks have soared to the highest sector of the S & P 500. Not only did the health insurance industry get some 20 million new enrollees as a result of the ACA (mostly through Medicaid expansion), but insurers gained many ways to decrease their risk for covering enrollees' health care costs. These include offering plans covering as little as 60 percent of costs (bronze plans), receiving "risk corridor" funds protecting them from losses (now a court case), benefit designs that still discriminate against the sick, shrinking provider networks, restrictive drug formularies, offering limited-benefit bare-bones policies, and deceptive marketing practices. In no way have they contained costs, even as they have been subsidized by new enrollees through the exchanges. All the while, they have gained market power through consolidation as they consume 15 to 20 percent of U. S. health care expenditures, mostly through profiteering, administrative overhead, and bureaucratic waste. If their merger agreements survive court challenges, just three giants--Anthem/Cigna, United Health Group, and Aetna/Humana will collectively have a margin share exceeding more than 130 million Americans. (2) Insurers have segmented the market in their own interests, shifting the burden of care of sicker patients to public programs. They have increasingly privatized both Medicare and Medicaid, resulting in higher administrative costs compared with public Medicare and Medicaid. They also maximize profits by cutting staff and value of coverage, resulting in worse outcomes for patients compared with public plans. (3) Most people are unaware that the government already pays for about 64 percent of total health care spending--about $1.9 trillion in 2013, much of that by subsidizing private health care industries, especially private health insurance. There is a long history to this subsidization, dating back to policy decisions after World War II giving tax exemptions to employers for their costs of providing employer-sponsored health insurance. The ACA bailed out the industry in 2010, which is once again calling for more government subsidies to stay in business. A just-released estimate by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acknowledges that the three-year risk corridor deficit from 2014 through 2016 for insurer losses will exceed $14 billion. (4) The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee for Taxation estimate that the net subsidy from the federal government in 2016 for health insurance for people under age 65 and costs for Medicaid enrollees under age 65 will be $660 billion. (5) That estimate includes effects of preferential tax treatment for employer-sponsored coverage. We can anticipate that insurers will make good on their threats to leave the market when we recall that 2.4 million private Medicare beneficiaries were abandoned in 2002, when they lost their Medicare + Choice coverage despite infusion of more federal dollars. (6) The incoming Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress will be pressured to continue a further federal bailout of the private health insurance industry. But why whip a dead horse? It is past time to learn that corporate greed and the business model do not, and will never, serve the common good. As Wendell Potter, former Cigna executive and author of Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans, observes: Folks, we are guilty of magical thinking. We've fallen for insurers' deception and misdirection, hook, line and sinker. And many of us can't be persuaded that we are being duped. Meanwhile, the shareholders of the big for-profits are laughing all the way to the bank. Every single day. (7) We--Americans needing health care, employers, federal and state governments, and all of us taxpayers--cannot afford another bailout of the health insurance industry, especially since we have a real fix-- single-payer, not-for-profit national health insurance, Medicare for All. It will provide universal access to care for our entire population, save us all money, give us free choice of physician and hospital, and improve our health care outcomes in a reformed system dedicated to service and the public interest. Corporate stakeholders with their political and economic power, and their lobbyists (most unregistered) are again pushing for continued government bailouts of this industry, which has not earned it. Another bailout cannot reverse the health insurance industry's continuing death spiral. John Geyman, M.D. is the author of The Human Face of ObamaCare: Promises vs. Reality and What Comes Next and How Obamacare is Unsustainable: Why We Need a Single-Payer Solution For All Americans visit: http://www.johngeymanmd.org Sources: 1. Eaton, J, Pell, MB. Lobbyists swarm capitol to influence health reform. Washington, D.C. The Center for Public Integrity, February 23, 2010) 2. Mattioli, D, Hoffman, L, Mathews, AW. Anthem hears $48 billion Cigna deal. Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2015: A1 3. Geyman, JP. The health insurance industry's last-ditch holdup. The Huffington Post, August 15, 2016.) 4. Blase, B. A taxpayer bailout of ObamaCare insurers just got a lot more expensive. Forbes, November 21, 2016.) 5. CBO and JCT. Federal subsidies for health insurance coverage for people under 65: 2016 to 2026. March 24, 2016. 6. Waldholz, M. Prescriptions. Medicare seniors face confusion as HMOs bail out of program. Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2002: D4.) 7. (Potter, W. It's way past time for us to stop deluding ourselves about private health insurers. The Progressive Populist, September 1, 2016: p. 20.) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 ноября, 17:09

Aetna Hits 52-Week High on Strong Q3, Star Rating Action

The upside in Aetna (AET) believed to have been driven by a profitable third quarter reported last month and favorable medicare star rating action.

18 ноября, 18:05

Donald Trump's Top Advisor Has A Potential $2.7 Billion Obamacare Conflict Of Interest

There’s nothing odd about the founders of a health insurance company writing policy proposals after an election where the winner campaigned relentlessly on ending Obamacare. And Wednesday morning, Mario Schlosser and Josh Kushner, the founders of Oscar, a health care startup that sells insurance on the state exchanges Obamacare created, did just that. They say they want more competition in the insurance industry, and they think allowing individuals to buy health care plans with pre-tax dollars would make that happen. Oscar’s founders also expressed openness to ideas Republicans have floated in the past. What’s interesting in this case is that Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump, the eldest daughter of President-elect Donald Trump. Jared Kushner is also serving on the executive committee of the presidential transition, and could potentially take a senior job in the White House. Venture capitalist and Facebook board member Peter Thiel, who also sits on the executive committee of the presidential transition, is also an investor in Oscar. A spokeswoman for Josh Kushner and Oscar declined to comment beyond his blog post. Spokespeople for Thiel and the Trump transition did not return requests for comment. Anti-nepotism laws bar Kushner from taking a paid job in the White House, though he is exploring getting around that rule by taking an unpaid role advising his father-in-law, The New York Times reports.   On the campaign trail, Trump railed against Obamacare and promised to replace it with something better ― though he never said what his alternative was exactly. He told The Wall Street Journal last week that he may try the virtually impossible task of keeping popular parts of the law, like allowing children to stay on their parents’ plans into their 20s and barring insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, while still reducing costs. But in all likelihood, any changes a Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress make would be far more favorable to insurance companies. That would create the potential for a conflict of interest ― or in the very least, the appearance of one ―  if Oscar were a run-of-the-mill health insurance company. But the potential is amplified due to the fact that Oscar was started for the express purpose of making money on the state exchanges for individual insurance. Oscar sells insurance through its website and app directly to individuals who aren’t covered by employer insurance or a government program. Individuals who aren’t covered are required to buy insurance or pay a penalty under what is called the individual mandate. The federal government partially subsidizes the plans that Oscar sells. Precisely how big that subsidy depends on the type of plan and how much money the person buying it makes. Federal conflict of interest rules say executive branch employees can’t make decisions that affect their family’s finances. That means that even if Jared Kushner accepted a job in the White House, which he has not yet, his brother Josh’s business falls outside the scope of the conflict of interest laws for federal employees. However, “there might be some question of whether it is appropriate to weigh in on decisions that have an enormous impact on [his] brother’s assets,”  said Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who was the chief ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.  [Oscar] lost $45 million in just the past three months, and a total of more than $230 million in the past 21 months. Painter, who endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, said he would put Oscar “fairly low down the alleged conflicts of interest in the incoming Trump administration.” But the conflict is emblematic, he said, of “how the private sector responded to Obamacare.” If Obamacare is repealed, a Trump administration is “going to be hurting a lot of people who invested in the system the way it is now... People they know and people they don’t know who depend on government being predictable.” Oscar “may be a conflict that helps to temper their decision-making,” Painter said. Whether the Trump administration’s decisions could put Oscar on a stable financial path is unclear. The company lost $45 million in just the past three months, and a total of more than $230 million in the past 21 months. Like other insurance companies, Oscar’s founders thought that the new individual marketplaces that Obamacare created would be a large and profitable. While some insurers have profitably sold insurance on the exchanges, Oscar has been unable to. Oscar has spent heavily on cute ads ― it’s hard not to see them if you ride the New York City subway ― but most people opt for established brands like Blue Cross and Blue Shield or Cigna. Oscar is also different from the massive insurance companies in that it doesn’t have a diversified revenue stream like corporate plans or government health care programs. That means that while companies like Aetna can choose to either absorb losses in the individual plan market or simply pull out and focus its business elsewhere (Aetna choose the latter in August). Oscar has to date raised a reported $400 million in venture capital because Oscar is losing money on Obamacare, and Obamacare is Oscar’s entire business. Indeed, the core bet of Oscar ― that a startup with a slick app could outsmart the entire insurance industry ― is belied by who has managed to be successful selling plans on the exchanges: companies with a track record of selling plans to individual buyers. That’s experience you don’t get coding apps. But only Oscar has an intimate connection to a top adviser to President-elect Trump. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 ноября, 17:03

«Пещера тишины»: почему сотрудники компаний должны медитировать — Методика медитации, исследования о ее воздействии, отзывы предпринимателей

Google, AOL, Apple, Aetna и Salesforce и другие компании из списка Fortune 500 предлагают своим сотрудникам классы медитации и осознанности, а главы корпораций называют медитацию одним из секретов своего успеха. Аналитик и тренер по креативному мышлению Кася Шаховская написала для vc.ru колонку о воздействии медитации на человека и рассказала, как научиться технике осознанной медитации.

Выбор редакции
18 ноября, 16:00

Sorry, Aetna And Anthem: Trump Won't Stop Antitrust Scrutiny Of Healthcare

Antitrust scrutiny of healthcare mergers will continue following the election of Donald Trump if nonpartisan investigations continue, industry analysts say.

14 ноября, 16:43

UnitedHealth Group Hits 52-Week High on Solid Earnings, View

UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) climbed to a 52-week high, led by strong earnings and raised guidance.

Выбор редакции
11 ноября, 16:45

Humana Hits 52-Week High on Solid Q3 Results, Revised View

On Nov 10, 2016, shares of Humana Inc. (HUM) hit a 52-week high of $194.05 driven by strong third-quarter 2016 results.

11 ноября, 02:12

After Obamacare, How Will TrumpCare Treat Insurers?

Now that the presidency of Donald Trump is certain, Obamacare is shrouded in uncertainty

09 ноября, 14:07

На что делать ставку с приходом Д. Трампа!

Ставка на Трампа. Инвестиционные идеи. Одной из основных ставок в предвыборной программе Д.Трампа значилось возврат крупного бизнеса обратно в Америку, а также восстановление инфраструктуры и создание миллионов рабочих мест. Также Трамп заявлял (может и не всерьёз) по крайней мере об одном крупном инфраструктурном проекте, который он намерен реализовать на посту президента США, — строительстве гигантской стены на границе между США и Мексикой. Исходя из этого,  инвесторам стоит обратить внимание на компании, производящие тяжелую грузовую и строительную технику, которые могут получить выгодные контракты в случае победы Трампа. Наиболее очевидный выбор — акции американской корпорации Caterpillar, крупнейшего производителя спецтехники в мире. При Трампе поддержку могут и должны получить нефтяные фьючерсы. На первых порах Трамп будет держаться в стороне от Ближнего Востока, а без надзора Америки там быстро вспыхнет очаг, который может взвентить цены на нефть. Плюс, Трамп резко критиковал демократов из-за отмены санкций против Ирана. С его приходом, рано или поздно, об этом могут вспомнить.Для России приход Трампа это большой позитив. Появился шанс на отмену санкций уже в следующем году, поэтому такие недооценённые компании, как Газпром, точно нужно покупать! Также Трамп неоднократно высказывался в поддержку американских производителей, обещая резко повысить ввозные пошлины для китайского и мексиканского импорта. Он выступал с критикой Транстихоокеанского партнерства — торгового союза с участием США, Японии и десятка других стран, а также обвинял Китай в искусственном занижении курса юаня, чтобы сделать свои товары более дешевыми и привлекательными на мировом рынке.Похоже, стоит ожидать «валютных войн» с КНР и облегчения положения компаний, ориентированных на внутренний рынок США. Из этого следует, что инвесторам нужно избегать акций китайских компаний и вкладываться, в американских работодателей — например в ресторанный бизнес. Еще одна важная инициатива Трампа — это налоговая реформа, которая в конечном счете сыграет на руку богатым американцам. Она предполагает отмену налога на недвижимость, сокращение налогов на дивиденды и прирост капитала, а также снижение верхней границы ставки подоходного налога с 39,6 до 33%. Сей факт подхлестнет потребительские настроения среди богатых американцев. Следовательно, будут расти акции премиальных брендов — к примеру, сети ювелирных магазинов Tiffany. В своей предвыборной кампании Трамп уделял особое внимание добывающей промышленности США. Он обещал «перезапустить» стагнирующие нефтяные и угольные месторождения за счет снижения регулятивной нагрузки и давления со стороны природоохранного. Следовательно, президентство Трампа окажет поддержку всему энергетическому сектору, поэтому инвесторы могут купить биржевой фонд SPDR Energy ETF, который отслеживает акции ключевых компаний этой отрасли из индекса S&P 500. Также они советуют обратить внимание на нефтегазовую компанию Gulfport Energy, можно и на другие. В сфере здравоохранения Трамп наметил настоящую революцию. Он не раз заявлял, что на посту президента непременно отменит знаменитую реформу здравоохранения и защиты пациентов, проведенную Бараком Обамой (так называемая Obamacare). Это решение могло бы поддержать акции страховых компаний, для которых пациенты времен Obamacare обходились слишком дорого. Наилучшие перспективы аналитики видят у страховой корпорации Aetna. Для финансового сектора победа Трампа также будет означать большие перемены. Республиканец намерен отменить закон Додда-Франка, ужесточивший регулирование американского рынка после мирового финансового кризиса. Инвестиционные банки воспрянут духом, поэтому инвесторам следует уже сейчас вкладываться в эту отрасль — например, в биржевой фонд Financial Select Sector ETF или акции JPMorgan & Chase. Также, будущее повышение ставок в США это плюс для банковского сектора. Ну а вцелом, почти все прогнозы сегодня сбылись. С уважением, Василий Олейник, эксперт брокерской и  инвестиционной  компании «Ай Ти Инвест»

07 ноября, 12:48

Бонусы на Уолл-стрит сокращаются три года подряд

Бонусы работникам финансовой отрасли Уолл-стрит по итогам 2016 года могут сократиться уже третий год подряд, что отражает период сокращения сделок M&A, ограничения торговой деятельности и сниженной доходности хедж-фондов.

07 ноября, 12:02

Бонусы на Уолл-стрит сокращаются три года подряд

Бонусы работникам финансовой отрасли Уолл-стрит по итогам 2016 г. могут сократиться уже третий год подряд, что отражает период сокращения сделок M&A, ограничения торговой деятельности и сниженной доходности хедж-фондов.