24 марта, 09:17

Опасная кибератака на нефтехимический завод может оказаться первой из многих

Кому-то может показаться, что это слишком далеко от нас, но такая атака могла произойти где угодно. Наибольший страх вызывает то, что хакеры могут получить доступ к атомным электростанциям, а это грозит огромными разрушениями. В мире появился новый вид угроз. И, честно говоря, это ужасно.

22 марта, 17:00

DowDuPont Unit Inks 3-Year Digital Solutions Deal With Planet

DowDuPont (DWDP) agriculture unit's three-year agreement with Planet will enable farmers to maximize crop potential.

21 марта, 21:09

Morgan Stanley: Underperformance In DowDuPont Provides An Attractive Entry Point

DowDuPont Inc (NYSE: DWDP ), a chemical conglomerate formed following the merger of Dow Chemical and Dupont, is soon to be split into three publicly-traded companies, focusing on agriculture, materials ...

21 марта, 15:00

7 Ways to Improve Operations Without Sacrificing Worker Safety

HBR STAFF/CSA Images/BW Archive Collection/Getty Images When I ask corporate leaders why they are committed to preventing serious injuries and deaths among their workers, most say they care about their employees and don’t want to see anyone hurt. They’ll also note that “safety pays” in reducing costs, or admit they fear reputational damage following a significant incident at their company. In my experience, these rationales rarely lead to significant changes in workplace safety and the prevention of serious injuries and deaths. Underneath it all, many business leaders have an implicit but unfounded belief that, while it is necessary to reduce workplace injury risk, there is a trade-off between profits and the expenditures necessary to keep workplaces safe. One example of this sticks in my mind. During my years at OSHA, where I served as the Assistant Secretary of Labor from 2009 through the beginning of 2017, I received several reports of safety system failures at DuPont facilities. I watched with concern as the company, under pressure from activist shareholders to increase profits, cut costs and let its safety program deteriorate. Needed repairs and upgrades were delayed, worker training postponed, and risk assessments overlooked. The culmination was an incident at an insecticide plant in LaPorte, Texas, where, as a result of a basic process safety management failure, an extremely toxic chemical—methyl mercaptan—was released and two workers were overcome. With inadequate equipment, others rushed in to save their colleagues. In all, four workers were killed. We fined DuPont a few hundred thousand dollars—a high penalty for OSHA but petty cash for DuPont. To get management’s attention, I issued a statement declaring that “these four preventable workplace deaths and the very serious hazards we uncovered at this facility are evidence of a failed safety program.” It worked. CEO Ellen Kullman came to see me and promised a top to bottom review of the DuPont safety program. I was pleased with our meeting, feeling like she had made a real commitment. And then, less than two weeks later, she stepped down. Her successor, Ed Breen, was quoted as saying, “as we confront a challenging environment, [Kullman] and the management team already have taken actions to accelerate cost reductions. Looking ahead, we will continue to drive productivity, and we plan to conduct a deep dive into the details of our cost structure and allocation of capital to ensure we deliver appropriate returns for shareholders.” When I read DuPont CEO Breen’s words “accelerating cost reductions,” my heart sank. I thought immediately of BP and the other industrial giants whose “accelerating cost reductions” had disastrous consequences. These kinds of statements speak to a leader’s choice of values, and a failure to understand the relationships between a safe work environment and operational performance. They convey to workers what’s really important, and they create ample context for inadequate safety focus lower down the organization. It doesn’t have to be this way. Companies can be successful and safe at the same time. The reality is that virtually all workplace injuries are preventable, and safety management and operational excellence are intimately linked. Injuries and catastrophic events, in addition to being tragic, are evidence that production is not being managed correctly. Improved operational performance will result in fewer injuries. Here are some steps CEOs, executives, and boards can take to accomplish just that. Start at the top. From the CEO down, the message should be, “We care about safety because we care about you — doing it right means no one gets hurt.” Take safety as seriously, if not more seriously, than anything else you do. One former CEO who exemplifies this message is Jim Gallogly, who was hired to be CEO of LyondellBasell, one of the world’s largest plastics, chemicals and refining companies, in 2009. When Gallogly arrived, the firm was in bankruptcy; his job was to return it to profitability (which he did). At his first meeting with employees, however, he announced that he wasn’t going to begin by talking about the firm’s financial challenges. Instead, the new CEO wanted to focus on something far more important: his absolute commitment to safety. He subsequently included a report of the firm’s safety performance in every earnings call, too. Aside from prioritizing safety with employees and investors, corporate leaders need to be familiar with the nature, extent, and potential of the major risks — and the risk mitigation plans — associated with their facilities. Many executives require every serious injury to be reported to them immediately. At Cummins, Inc., for example, serious incidents are reported directly to the COO and communicated to business unit vice presidents as well. They are then reviewed by the company’s Manufacturing Leadership Council. When operational staff knows that the C-suite will be on the receiving end of such reports, and that they will be analyzed in detail, it reminds mid-level management of the importance of risk reduction and injury prevention. Use the right incentives. The term “safety culture” is misleading because it suggests organizations have multiple cultures:  one for safety, another for production, and perhaps others for quality and for sales.  In reality, each company has its own organizational culture, and all too often, when production needs suddenly to increase, production takes precedence over safety. At the safest, most successful companies, safety is what the firm does — and what the firm is at its core — not something that is separate from operations. In fact, a study of 19 manufacturing firms on quality, productivity, and economic performance, along with subjective data on how workers and managers felt about their safety program, found that: “As safety deteriorates, product quality and plant performance, based on internal and external measures, suffers. There is more scrap, more rework, and employees are less involved. Such outcomes are in line with the core concepts of total quality management which would suggest that employees who do not feel safe in their jobs are not likely to do their jobs well…. Safety and operating performance measures should be viewed as in concert with each rather than as competing entities.” Operations managers must get the message, though direct comments, performance reviews, and bonuses, that safety is a central part of their jobs. I have seen far too many employers who fail to penalize managers when their safety management systems are failing but their production numbers are good. LyondellBasell, for example, has a policy that makes it clear that safety is no less important than profits. According to Jim Gallogly, no matter how low the OSHA recordable injury rate, if there is a serious incident — a fire, a chemical release, a worker is seriously hurt — no manager gets a bonus. Don’t blame workers for injuries. Workers are humans and humans make mistakes. No matter the job, at some point a person will get tired, bored, or distracted. Because of this, errors are inevitable. Well-functioning safety programs understand this and have multiple backup systems to ensure that mistakes do not result in injuries or deaths. It’s also worth remembering that serious events are almost always caused by multiple factors — not the actions of one person — and that the prevention of these events is most effective when many indicators are considered together. The most effective path to preventing injuries is to consider human errors as the consequences, rather than as causes, of operational failure. As James Reason, the organizational psychologist who authored the seminal book Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, wrote, “(w)hen an adverse event occurs, the important issue is not who blundered, but how and why the defenses failed.” Rethink how you think about injury rates. Injury rates, often called “OSHA recordables” are important metrics, in that they reflect the very real experience of your workforce. At the same time, injury rates and reports of specific incidents are what are known as lagging indicators. While they identify problems that often need immediate attention, they do not adequately evaluate a firm’s safety and health management system. This may be the opposite of what many CEOs hear from their safety professionals. For many years, it was a common belief that preventing minor injuries will also prevent the most serious ones. In fact, the causal chains that lead to most serious and fatal injuries are quite different than those leading to the majority of “OSHA recordable” injuries (#4 talks more about these). This is especially true in the high-risk sectors where a single event can be catastrophic. Famously, BP executives were on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig the night before that horrific explosion, giving its workers an award for their low injury rate. That said, you should set concrete goals for injury rates at your company. But instead of focusing on a lower rate, I would recommend setting an aspirational goal of zero injuries (while making it clear that reporting injuries is an absolute requirement). The undesirable premise underlying the goal of a lower injury rate — versus aspiring to no injuries — is that it is OK for some workers to get hurt, as long as fewer get hurt than before. Focus on leading indicators. To make substantial progress in injury prevention, companies must select a set of indicators that measure progress toward that firm’s chosen goals. These are called “leading indicators” because, unlike lagging indicators like recordable injuries, they are predictive of fatalities, serious injuries, or events that may have catastrophic consequences. The measures could involve hazard identification or abatement, incident investigations, or the time it takes to close out of recommendations, among others. Each firm needs to select or develop its own, appropriate to its functions and products. Start with a small number and then add more as your program matures. The pharmaceutical manufacturer Allergan, for example, tracks “good observations,” reports that include near misses, unsafe conditions, or suggestions for reducing risk. Beyond providing a mechanism for workers to alert management to problems, this metric encourages a continual focus on risk reduction. Good observations are a take-off point for another measure the company tracks: speed in which serious or high gravity hazards are addressed.  Simply receiving the observations is not enough, of course; eliminating the serious hazards are what is important. Whatever the metrics, top managers should use them to measure the evolution of their safety management system (see #5 below), and they should be an integral component of managerial performance payments.  The performance of senior executives at Dow Chemical, for example, is evaluated using leading safety indicators, not injury rates. Embrace a safety and health management system. Managing for safety requires managers to implement a systemic process to find and fix workplace hazards before workers are hurt. Generically these programs are called Safety and Health Management Systems (SHMSs) or Injury and Illness Prevention Programs. They all involve an iterative, continual improvement process that have as their operating principle the Plan Do Check Act cycle (or the Plan Do Study Act cycle, sometimes called the “Deming Wheel”) widely in use today. In order to be successful, an SHMS must involve support from leadership; worker participation (including the acting involvement of a union if one present in an organization); hazard identification, assessment, prevention and control; opportunities for education and training; and regular program evaluation and improvement. SHMSs should also include protocols for investigating incidents that are sometimes called near misses or close calls. These incident investigations, conducted with the participation of managers, workers, and safety experts, examine the chain or root causes that led to the incident and then develop recommendations for preventing them in the future. Welcome a regulator as a “cheap consultant.” A visit from an OSHA inspector often triggers fear, if not panic, especially among inexperienced managers. But many OSHA inspections lead to substantial improvements in a firm’s operations. I was amused to hear an executive at one of the nation’s largest chemical manufacturers tell me that he looked at OSHA inspections as an inexpensive consultant, since our fines were always less than he would have to pay an industrial hygienist to do that same inspection for him. In fact, most firms actually benefit from OSHA inspections, and I’m not just saying this because I worked there. According to researchers David I. Levine and Michael W. Toffel, OSHA’s random inspections of high hazard establishments result in a 9% reduction in injuries that triggered workers’ compensation claims in the four years following the inspection. On average, each inspection reduced employer expenditures for wage replacement and medical costs by $350,000.  Further, not only do the OSHA inspections prevent injuries, “they cause no discernible damage to employers’ ability to stay in business and no reductions in sales or credit ratings… Nor did we identify any effects of workplace inspections on wages, total payroll, or employment.” Today and every day in the future, corporate leaders need to reassess what safety means and how their company can achieve it. They need to recognize that safety is a value proposition, that safety management and operational excellence are inextricably linked. If you ask the CEOs of companies who take this seriously, my bet is you won’t hear the same old tired line that “safety is a priority.” They understand that safety is not a priority — it is an essential precondition of their work. It is a fundamental component of their operating culture. Safety, ultimately, is at the core of what they do.

15 марта, 17:00

Stock Market News for March 15, 2018

Benchmarks closed in the red for the third consecutive trading day on Wednesday following concerns over a possible trade war between the U.S. and China

15 марта, 16:00

Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: DowDuPont, Albemarle and Monsanto

Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: DowDuPont, Albemarle and Monsanto

14 марта, 23:55

Chemical Industry Looking Up: Stocks Warranting a Look

Chemical Industry Looking Up: Stocks Warranting a Look

13 марта, 17:20

Company News For Mar 13, 2018

Companies In The News are: OCLR,DWDP,LITE,GS,DIS

Выбор редакции
12 марта, 20:39

How To Succeed in the Chemical Business Without Really Trying

Running a major American corporation has become so lucrative that critics of long-serving executives like longtime Dow Chemical boss Andrew Liveris are entitled to be blunt. In a world of mediocre to bad corporate leaders, Mr. Liveris stands out.

12 марта, 13:44

Председатель правления и генеральный директор DowDuPont уходит с поста

Согласно информации из осведомленных источников, председатель правления и генеральный директор американского представителя химической отрасли DowDuPont Эндрю Ливерис (Andrew Liveris) уходит с поста. Сообщается, что должность Ливериса займет его соруководитель Джефф Феттиг (Jeff Fettig). Изменения должны вступить в силу 1 апреля текущего года. При этом известно, что до 1 июля Эндрю Ливерис останется на посту директора объединенной компании. Представители самой компании данную информацию пока не прокомментировали. Напомним, что в прошлом месяце DowDuPont, образованная в результате слияния двух химических гигантов Dow Chemical и DuPont, объявила названия трех компаний, на которые она будет разделена. Производитель химии для сельского хозяйства, включая гербициды и ГМО, будет называться Corteva Agriscience. Между тем, компания, которая будет специализироваться на выпуске р

12 марта, 13:31

Председатель правления и генеральный директор DowDuPont уходит с поста

Согласно информации из осведомленных источников, председатель правления и генеральный директор американского представителя химической отрасли DowDuPont Эндрю Ливерис (Andrew Liveris) уходит с поста. Сообщается, что должность Ливериса займет его соруководитель Джефф Феттиг (Jeff Fettig). Изменения должны вступить в силу 1 апреля текущего года. При этом известно, что до 1 июля Эндрю Ливерис останется на посту директора объединенной компании. Представители самой компании данную информацию пока не прокомментировали. Напомним, что в прошлом месяце DowDuPont, образованная в результате слияния двух химических гигантов Dow Chemical и DuPont, объявила названия трех компаний, на которые она будет разделена. Производитель химии для сельского хозяйства, включая гербициды и ГМО, будет называться Corteva Agriscience. Между тем, компания, которая будет специализироваться на выпуске р

08 марта, 17:39

DowDuPont (DWDP) to Roll Out Ecofast Pure at AATCC Conference

DowDuPont's (DWDP) subsidiary Dow Chemical's breakthrough technology Ecofast Pure provides brighter colors on natural textiles and improves resource efficiency during the dyeing process.

05 марта, 18:16

Маркетинговые игры. Почему спонсорство Олимпиады дает поразительные результаты

Для большинства людей, всю свою жизнь проработавших в маркетинге, нет ничего более загадочного, чем спонсорство Олимпийских игр

05 марта, 09:00

An Anarchist Explains How Hackers Could Cause Global Chaos

Authored by Laura Sydell via NPR.org, Artists and criminals are often the first to push the boundaries of technology. Barrett Brown is a criminal who has actually helped inspire art - the TV show Mr. Robot. Its protagonist is a hacktivist - a hacker who breaks into computer systems to promote a cause. Brown was connected to Anonymous, a group that hacked a private security firm to reveal secrets. He is now out and living in a halfway house in Dallas. He had spent years in a prison cell thinking about what he might do when he got out. And he says he is ready to change, so next time he gets involved in hacking a corporation he is able to inflict maximum damage. "Certainly, I haven't gotten any less militant in the course of having these things done to me," Brown says. Barrett Brown served time for being part of Anonymous, a group that hacked a private security firm to reveal secrets. Courtesy of Barrett Brown Since most hacktivists operate in the shadows, Brown offers the best look at these cyber-revolutionaries and their motivations. The 36-year-old Brown was born in Dallas. His father was a wealthy real estate investor, until he was investigated by the FBI for fraud. Brown's father was never charged, but the family lost all its money and his parents divorced. "It was something that I'm sure instilled in me the idea that there was a degree of arbitrary power out there that could come down at any time and disrupt your life, as it did to me when I was a child," Brown says. He hates arbitrary power and always has. He is an anarchist who believes the U.S. government is fundamentally corrupt. And he says most Americans are too complacent to do anything about it. "That's what ... in part brings me to contempt for the American citizenry," he says. "Obviously, I have no respect for the laws, for the government or for the voters." Instead, he says, his own code of values drives him. He became a radical intellectual — more interested in spreading revolutionary ideas than in protesting in the streets. But in 2006, Brown saw a potential outlet for his anarchist dreams — the hacktivist group Anonymous. It was leaderless, crowdsourced and militant. Anonymous managed to organize a massive attack on Scientology, even taking down its website. Brown started covering Anonymous as a journalist but soon became deeply involved. "I saw this as the very first ripples in something that would grow to be one of the great dynamics of the 21st century, that we would see more of this emergence [of] online warfare essentially against institutions including nation-states," he says. For many years, Brown was a sort of unofficial spokesman for Anonymous, appearing in interviews dressed in a beige corduroy or navy blue jacket and dress shirt, a cigarette dangling from his hand. He looked more like a preppy than a revolutionary. In 2011, the group began targeting companies that contracted with the U.S. government. One of them was Stratfor — a global intelligence firm. Emails released after an Anonymous hack included sensitive information on top-secret government missions like the killing of Osama bin Laden. The emails also show Dow Chemical hired Stratfor to spy on activists trying to get money for families who suffered during the Bhopal disaster. Brown viewed this as a private corporate version of COINTELPRO — the FBI's effort in the 1960s to discredit activists like Martin Luther King Jr. Brown created Project PM, an online chatroom where participants looked through thousands of hacked emails to find the most incriminating. One email contained thousands of credit card numbers — and stealing credit cards is a crime. In September 2012, Brown was at home talking online with members of Project PM. "I heard a rustling at my door and I walked over to the door. I was holding a beer in my hand," he says. "[I] thought it was another friend of mine." But when he opened the door there was a SWAT team equipped with shields and helmets. Brown says they were yelling, "Put your hands up buddy." Brown says they had him on the floor and put a boot on his back. The audio of the arrest was recorded by someone in the Project PM chatroom. Brown faced up to 100 years in prison. His mother was charged with hiding his laptops. Brown admits he went a bit off the rails. He posted a video on YouTube attacking an FBI agent. "I was a former heroin addict," Brown says. "I was getting off Suboxone at the time, which is a synthetic opiate. And I was sort of suddenly feeling emotions again that have been kind of bottled, kept down a few months. I was very upset about my mother being threatened with indictment." Still, Brown was a cause célèbre among certain activists and journalists. Many felt he was being put away for simply looking through hacked emails — something any journalist would do. Brown eventually pleaded guilty to threatening a federal officer and to two other charges. The government imprisoned other members of Anonymous. The group kind of faded away, but its tactics did not. During the 2016 election, Russian state-supported hackers used some of the same tools as Anonymous — hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee and posting them on WikiLeaks to embarrass Hillary Clinton. I wondered, is there really any difference between a foreign agent trying to undermine our democracy and hacktivists like Anonymous? Is Brown a hero or a villain? I turned to an unlikely expert to help me figure that out — Sam Esmail, the creator of the TV show Mr. Robot. "Their spirit is in activism," Esmail says. "Their spirit is in exposing these frauds and abuses by people in power. And that's just something on a human level I respect." But Mr. Robot is hardly a glowing portrait of hacktivists. Its hero, Elliot, is a drug addict who can't access his own emotions. Sound familiar? Elliot leads a group called fsociety that takes down the world's largest corporation — erasing everyone's debt. Chaos erupts. Mr. Robot actor Rami Malek (from left), writer/producer Sam Esmail and actor Christian Slater, at the Critics' Choice Awards in Santa Monica, Calif., in 2016. "Their spirit's in exposing these frauds and abuses by people in power," Esmail says of hacktivists. "And that's just something on a human level I respect." Jason Merritt/Getty Images Esmail says he is looking at an age-old dilemma. "Do we commit a criminal act for something that we feel is just, even though the consequences could be great?" he says. "That's such a kind of loaded, huge, but very relevant question today." Brown doesn't seem interested in examining the moral ambiguity of hacktivist crimes. But he says he is learning from past mistakes. Ultimately, Brown feels that Anonymous was disorganized and lacked leadership. So he is designing a software program called Pursuance, which he says will take hacktivism into the future. It will be fully encrypted, anyone could use it to sort through a trove of hacked documents, and it could even be used to recruit a team of hackers. Brown says when people tweet and post their opinions on social media it's just "slactivism." "The next great act of hacktivism, if it really is going to be great, it has to be an act of reaffirming the idea of civic duty," he says. He says he wants to provide a mechanism for people who do feel that sense of civic duty to really have impact. Brown is ready to be a martyr for the cause if he has to be. He would even go back to prison. "I want to be in a position to defeat my powerful adversaries in public," he says, "where everyone could admire the pluck in which I did it." Brown is casting himself in a starring role in the new world. And in his mind Mr. Robot is no fantasy. It's what the future really looks like.

04 марта, 14:31

Money in Politics: 20 Interest Groups Fueling Government Corruption

Where does all the money that influences our political system come from? We have a list of the top 20 special-interest groups lining Congress' pockets.

Выбор редакции
03 марта, 22:15

Merger Complete, Here's What's Next for DowDuPont

Investors are eagerly awaiting the next step from the Dow Chemical and DuPont merger: the breakup into three separate companies.

03 марта, 01:38

Watch These ETFs as Trade War Risks Rise

Donald Trump announced plans to impose tariffs on Steel and Aluminum imports.

27 февраля, 19:11

Wall Street: ближайшие уровни поддержки и cопротивления по основным акциям

Компания Тикер Ближайший уровень поддержки Цена Ближайший уровень сопротивления Alcoa Corporation AA 45,00 45,96 55,00 Apple Inc. AAPL 155,00 179,55 180,00 Barrick Gold Corporation ABX 10,00 11,78 14,00 American International Group, Inc. AIG 58,00 59,17 65,00 Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 1300,00 1520,04 1600,00 American Express Company AXP 88,00 101,08 102,00 Boeing Co. BA 320,00 366,40 380,00 Bank of America Corporation BAC 29,00 32,64 33,00 Caterpillar Inc. CAT 145,00 162,70 175,00 Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO 38,00 45,06 46,00 Chevron Corporation CVX 110,00 115,07 135,00 Walt Disney Co. DIS 102,00 106,06 113,00 The Dow Chemical Company DWDP 68,00 73,11 77,00 Ford Motor Co. F 10,00 10,90 14,00 Facebook, Inc. FB 170,00 183,78 195,00 FedEx Corporation FDX 230,00 252,79 275,00 General Electric Company GE 14,00 14,91 19,00 General Motors Company GM 40,00 41,12 45,00 Google Inc. GOOG 1000,00 1135,47 1200,00 The Goldman Sachs Group GS 240,00 270,85 275,00 The Home Depot, Inc. HD 175,00 187,33 190,00 Honeywell International Inc. HON 145,00 155,58 165,00 Hewlett-Packard Company HPQ 20,00 23,44 24,00 International Business Machines IBM 145,00 158,26 170,00 Intel Corporation INTC 42,00 50,13 51,00 International Paper Co. IP 56,00 60,77 67,00 Johnson & Johnson JNJ 125,00 133,04 148,00 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM 105,00 118,74 120,00 The Coca-Cola Company KO 43,00 43,99 48,50 McDonald's Corp. MCD 155,00 161,64 180,00 3M Co. MMM 220,00 242,89 260,00 Altria Group Inc. MO 64,00 64,78 74,00 Merck & Co. Inc. MRK 54,00 55,68 62,00 Microsoft Corporation MSFT 84,00 95,30 96,00 Nike Inc. NKE 62,00 68,45 70,00 Pfizer Inc. PFE 34,00 37,04 39,50 Procter & Gamble Co. PG 80,00 81,23 93,00 Starbucks Corporation SBUX

27 февраля, 10:24

Олимпийский баланс: почему допинг-скандалы не влияют на доходы МОК

Как долгосрочная стратегия помогает МОК избежать финансовых потерь в случае проблем

Выбор редакции
26 февраля, 20:36

DowDuPont объявила названия трех компаний-преемниц

DowDuPont Inc, образованная в прошлом году в результате слияния двух химических гигантов Dow Chemical Co.

02 февраля 2016, 17:00

Рекорд КНР: ChemChina-Syngenta за $43 млрд

На мировом рынке семян и удобрений грядет настоящая революция: китайская госкорпорация ChemChina готова купить швейцарскую Syngenta за $43 млрд. Это станет крупнейшим приобретением за всю историю Китая.

02 февраля 2016, 17:00

Рекорд КНР: ChemChina-Syngenta за $43 млрд

На мировом рынке семян и удобрений грядет настоящая революция: китайская госкорпорация ChemChina готова купить швейцарскую Syngenta за $43 млрд. Это станет крупнейшим приобретением за всю историю Китая.

11 декабря 2015, 15:41

DuPont и Dow Chemical объявили о слиянии

Американские компании Dow Chemical Co. и DuPont Co. объявили о слиянии. Объединение старейших корпораций станет одной из крупнейших сделок в мировой химической отрасли. На закрытие торгов 10 декабря совокупная капитализация компаний превысила $130 млрд.

20 января 2014, 02:32

Кто контролирует мир?

В прошлой статье был общемировой отраслевой разрез, но весьма любопытно распределение секторов в общей выручке по странам мира, что позволит понять, какая страна в чем больше специализируется и кто удерживает больше всех доходов и активов? Кто в чем силен и слаб? Все публичные компании США с доходами более 50 млн из нефинансового сектора генерируют выручку почти 12 трлн долларов по всей планете, что составляет четверть от всех доходов публичных компаний мира. У японских компаний почти в два раза меньше доходов – 6.2 трлн, следом Китай – 3.5 трлн, Великобритания – 2.4 трлн, Франция и Германия по 2.1 трлн, Корея 1.8 трлн, у Индии и России по 1 трлн. Компании в ТОП 30 стран мира зарабатывают 42 трлн – 93.5% от всех доходов публичных компаний мира. В расчетах по доходам компаний учитывались 2012-2013 финансовые года без синхронизации по календарной дате. Будет правильно, если сравнить расчет по доходам с номинальным ВВП страны за 2012-2013 года.  2820 компаний из нефинансового сектора, имеющих американскую нац.принадлежность, которые генерируют 12 трлн доходов в год занимают около 76% от номинального ВВП США. Без индивидуальных предпринимателей и без малого-среднего бизнеса, также без некой части крупного бизнеса, который выведен с торгов или не представлен. Публичные компании из Японии имеют долларовую выручку больше, чем ВВП Японии в $ - 104% от ВВП. В расчет пошли даже больше компаний, чем в США – 2845 (В 10 с лишним раз больше, чем индекс Nikkei 225)! Это вполне понятно, т.к. из тех, кто представлен на торгах почти все имеют международной бизнес и доля иностранной выручки у японских компаний наибольшая среди крупнейших стран. В принципе, это то, что я и хотел, т.к. отчет по ВВП не даст полной картины, какие активы и доходы под контролем крупнейших нац.компаний. Аналогичная ситуация в Корее (159% от ВВП), Гонконге (200%) и Тайвани (190%) и Швейцарии (134%) . И это компании, предоставляющие публичные отчеты. Низкая доля нац.выручки компаний в % от ВВП в России, Китае, Индии, Бразилии, Мексике, Турции связана в большей степени с тем, что не развит фондовый рынок и мало компаний в публичном статусе. Высокая доля у Южной Африки и Тайланда по причине того, что почти вся выручка международная (сырьевая). В Финляндии из-за экспортной доли изделий из древесины и фактор Нокия. В США может показаться % к ВВП незначительным, учитывая количество транснациональных корпораций. В расчетах нет десятков и сотен тысяч компаний из среднего-малого бизнеса, которые определенную роль играют. В следующей таблице объем годовой выручки в млрд долл для всех публичных компаний в каждом отдельном секторе для ТОП 30 стран.   Кстати, энергетический сектор в США имеет в 3,4 раза (!) больше выручки, чем в России. Но не только США опережают Россию, но и Китай (China Petroleum + PetroChina и остальные) и Англия (Royal Dutch Shell + BP и другие). У японских компаний также много выручки, но не за счет добычи, а за счет переработки и транспортировки (основной игрок JX Holdings). Сектор Materials - металлургия всех типов, химия (добыча, обработка), в том числе химическая промышленность, деревообработка, строительные материалы. Россия здесь в конце списка крупных стран, хотя казалось бы должно быть наоборот. Причина в том, что в России почти нет крупных химически концернов генерирующих высокую добавленную стоимость (типа немецкой BASF SE, американской Dow Chemical Co и EI du Pont). Чистая добыча полезных ископаемых приносит доход, но не сравнить с переработкой, обработкой, где на единицу затраченных ресурсов выхлоп намного больше. В Японии также, как и с энергетическим сектором. Более полутриллиона доходов не за счет добычи, а обработка + развитая химическая отрасль. Самая крупная металлургическая компания в Японии - Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal. На чистой добыче (Россия, Бразилия, Канада, Австралия) много дохода не поднять, а в основном бизнес делается на переработке и химии в этом секторе. Utilities - производство электроэнергии, распределение электроэнергии, газа, воды и прочие коммунальные услуги. В России 121 млрд дохода – это исключительно электроэнергетика (производство и распределение) . Огромная выручка во Франции и Германии (E.ON, GDF Suez, Electricite de France). Сектор здравоохранения безоговорочные лидеры США, с большим отставанием Япония, Германия и Швейцария. Промышленность, бизнес услуги, транспорт – США, на равных Япония, далее Китай, следом Корея и вместе Франция, Германия. По товарам длительного пользования потребительского назначения, авто и компоненты, медиа сектор и услуги – США, Япония, Германия, Франция, Китай. По рознице и товарам краткосрочного пользования – США, Япония, Англия, Франция. Также, как по доходам, но в виде доли от общей выручки в % для упрощенного визуального восприятия специализации стран. У Швейцарии энергетика из-за трейдиного энерго гиганта Glencore Xstrata.  Если объединить весь несырьевой сектор, т.е. исключая из общих доходов Energy, Materials и Utilities, который прямо зависит от цен на сырье, то расклад такой. США – 7.1 трлн, Япония - 3.4 трлн, Германия - 1.2 трлн, Франция – 1 трлн, Англия 0.94 трлн, Китай 0.9 трлн, Корея 0.8 трлн. Но если в Китай включить Тайвань и Гонконг, то выйдет 1.8 трлн и 3 место после Японии. У России публичный несырьевой сегмент всего 0.14 трлн на уровне Индонезии, Бельгии и ниже, чем в Южной Африке. В % от выручки ниже  Как видно, в России запредельное количество компании (82%), бизнес которых напрямую зависит от уровня цен на сырье. Тоже самое, что недавно делал по ИТ, но теперь по всем секторам сразу. В таблице доля выручки нац.компаний в общей выручке по секторам. Например, Consumer Staples у США = 34.2% - такая доля американских компаний от всех компаний планеты в секторе Consumer Staples.  Собственно, по этой таблице наглядно видна специализация стран с точки зрения выборки публичных компаний. Более половины доходов по здравоохранению у США. Во всех без исключения секторах они абсолютные лидеры по выручке. Второе место у Японии, третье у Китая с учетом Гонконга и Тайвани. Самые дорогие компании планеты по отношению капитализация/выручка в Швейцарии и США. Самые дешевые в России, Корее, Бразилии, Италии и ... Японии. Примечательно, что не смотря на бурный рост рынка в Японии, по P/S они достаточно низко, но это исторически так сложилось, потому что японские компании убыточные обычно, либо на грани рентабельности работают.  Но я специально выделил в последней графе сырьевой сектор, зависящий от цен на сырье (Energy, Materials и Utilities). Получается, что Россия оценивается также, как Китай, Индия и Бразилия, но более, чем в два раза ниже, чем Канада и Австралия. ИТ компании в Тайвани в среднем в 4 раза дешевле, чем в США. Наиболее дорогие компании по производству товаров краткосрочного пользования и их продаже в Китае и Англии среди ведущих стран. По производству товаров длительного пользования и авто в Германии стоимость компаний в два раза ниже, чем в США. Энергетический сектор в Японии почти ничего не стоит. Наиболее дорогие промышленные компании и из сферы бизнес услуг в США, далее Канада и Швейцария, а самые дешевые в Корее