26 декабря 2017, 19:18

Wall Street: ближайшие уровни поддержки и cопротивления по основным акциям

Компания Тикер Ближайший уровень поддержки Цена Ближайший уровень сопротивления Alcoa Corporation AA 40,00 50,00 50,00 Apple Inc. AAPL 165,00 170,78 177,00 Barrick Gold Corporation ABX 12,50 14,53 14,50 American International Group, Inc. AIG 58,00 59,32 61,00 Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 1100,00 1165,03 1200,00 American Express Company AXP 93,00 98,32 100,00 Boeing Co. BA 255,00 296,08 300,00 Bank of America Corporation BAC 26,00 29,71 30,00 Caterpillar Inc. CAT 135,00 156,80 160,00 Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO 33,00 38,60 39,00 Chevron Corporation CVX 112,00 125,80 128,00 Walt Disney Co. DIS 102,00 108,26 112,00 The Dow Chemical Company DWDP 68,00 71,55 74,00 Ford Motor Co. F 12,00 12,59 13,00 Facebook, Inc. FB 170,00 175,64 185,00 FedEx Corporation FDX 200,00 250,14 255,00 General Electric Company GE 17,00 17,55 19,00 General Motors Company GM 40,00 41,89 45,00 Google Inc. GOOG 1000,00 1054,09 1100,00 The Goldman Sachs Group GS 245,00 256,69 263,00 The Home Depot, Inc. HD 180,00 189,54 190,00 Honeywell International Inc. HON 153,00 153,85 156,00 Hewlett-Packard Company HPQ 20,50 21,22 22,50 International Business Machines IBM 145,00 153,25 163,00 Intel Corporation INTC 42,00 46,25 48,00 International Paper Co. IP 53,00 57,80 59,00 Johnson & Johnson JNJ 136,00 140,03 144,00 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM 102,00 106,82 110,00 The Coca-Cola Company KO 45,00 45,80 46,50 McDonald's Corp. MCD 160,00 171,45 175,00 3M Co. MMM 225,00 235,41 245,00 Altria Group Inc. MO 70,00 72,22 75,00 Merck & Co. Inc. MRK 54,00 56,48 58,00 Microsoft Corporation MSFT 80,00 85,35 88,00 Nike Inc. NKE 58,00 63,74 65,00 Pfizer Inc. PFE 35,00 36,17 37,50 Procter & Gamble Co. PG 90,00 92,72 95,00 Starbucks Corporation SBUX

19 декабря 2017, 20:12

Wall Street: ближайшие уровни поддержки и cопротивления по основным акциям

Компания Тикер Ближайший уровень поддержки Цена Ближайший уровень сопротивления Alcoa Corporation AA 40,00 46,09 50,00 Apple Inc. AAPL 165,00 174,77 175,00 Barrick Gold Corporation ABX 12,50 14,28 14,50 American International Group, Inc. AIG 58,00 59,89 61,00 Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 1100,00 1184,38 1200,00 American Express Company AXP 93,00 99,26 100,00 Boeing Co. BA 255,00 297,40 300,00 Bank of America Corporation BAC 26,00 29,47 30,00 Caterpillar Inc. CAT 135,00 149,74 150,00 Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO 33,00 38,42 39,00 Chevron Corporation CVX 112,00 120,28 122,00 Walt Disney Co. DIS 102,00 112,11 112,00 The Dow Chemical Company DWDP 68,00 71,58 74,00 Ford Motor Co. F 12,00 12,73 13,00 Facebook, Inc. FB 170,00 178,73 185,00 FedEx Corporation FDX 200,00 242,34 245,00 General Electric Company GE 17,00 17,63 19,00 General Motors Company GM 40,00 42,65 45,00 Google Inc. GOOG 960,00 1068,91 1100,00 The Goldman Sachs Group GS 245,00 256,87 260,00 The Home Depot, Inc. HD 180,00 186,19 190,00 Honeywell International Inc. HON 153,00 154,54 156,00 Hewlett-Packard Company HPQ 20,50 21,47 22,50 International Business Machines IBM 145,00 153,32 163,00 Intel Corporation INTC 42,00 46,19 47,00 International Paper Co. IP 53,00 57,91 59,00 Johnson & Johnson JNJ 136,00 141,45 144,00 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM 102,00 106,85 110,00 The Coca-Cola Company KO 45,00 46,26 46,50 McDonald's Corp. MCD 160,00 173,71 175,00 3M Co. MMM 225,00 237,23 245,00 Altria Group Inc. MO 70,00 74,18 75,00 Merck & Co. Inc. MRK 54,00 56,31 58,00 Microsoft Corporation MSFT 80,00 85,46 88,00 Nike Inc. NKE 58,00 64,64 65,00 Pfizer Inc. PFE 35,00 36,96 37,00 Procter & Gamble Co. PG 88,00 91,83 95,00 Starbucks Corporation SBUX

14 декабря 2017, 15:51

DowDuPont 3D Printing Materials Now Available in China

DowDuPont (DWDP) Hytrel thermoplastic elastomer and Zytel nylon-based filaments offer greater design freedom, light weighting, reduced product development cycle times.

12 декабря 2017, 20:56

Wall Street: ближайшие уровни поддержки и cопротивления по основным акциям

Компания Тикер Ближайший уровень поддержки Цена Ближайший уровень сопротивления Alcoa Corporation AA 40,00 42,42 11,00 Apple Inc. AAPL 150,00 171,93 175,00 Barrick Gold Corporation ABX 12,50 13,61 15,00 American International Group, Inc. AIG 58,00 59,88 61,00 Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 1100,00 1170,21 1200,00 American Express Company AXP 93,00 99,44 100,00 Boeing Co. BA 255,00 291,18 300,00 Bank of America Corporation BAC 26,00 29,35 30,00 Caterpillar Inc. CAT 135,00 143,54 145,00 Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO 33,00 37,90 38,00 Chevron Corporation CVX 112,00 119,90 122,00 Walt Disney Co. DIS 102,00 107,11 110,00 The Dow Chemical Company DWDP 68,00 70,86 74,00 Ford Motor Co. F 12,00 12,55 13,00 Facebook, Inc. FB 170,00 178,42 185,00 FedEx Corporation FDX 200,00 239,60 240,00 General Electric Company GE 17,00 17,99 19,00 General Motors Company GM 40,00 41,38 45,00 Google Inc. GOOG 960,00 1047,65 1060,00 The Goldman Sachs Group GS 230,00 256,42 260,00 The Home Depot, Inc. HD 160,00 182,12 185,00 Honeywell International Inc. HON 145,00 153,99 156,00 Hewlett-Packard Company HPQ 21,00 21,02 22,50 International Business Machines IBM 145,00 157,39 163,00 Intel Corporation INTC 40,00 43,40 47,00 International Paper Co. IP 53,00 56,66 59,00 Johnson & Johnson JNJ 136,00 143,10 144,00 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM 95,00 106,80 110,00 The Coca-Cola Company KO 45,00 45,45 47,50 McDonald's Corp. MCD 160,00 172,54 175,00 3M Co. MMM 225,00 237,98 245,00 Altria Group Inc. MO 61,00 71,98 74,00 Merck & Co. Inc. MRK 54,00 56,94 62,00 Microsoft Corporation MSFT 80,00 85,54 86,00 Nike Inc. NKE 58,00 62,21 64,00 Pfizer Inc. PFE 35,00 36,64 37,00 Procter & Gamble Co. PG 88,00 90,16 95,00 Starbucks Corporation SBUX

12 декабря 2017, 17:05

DowDuPont Unit to Expand Propionic Acid Facility in Texas

DowDuPont's (DWDP) subsidiary Dow Chemical's latest move is in sync with its plans to support growth of the propionic acid market along with debottlenecking projects completed at the Texas City facility in 2015 and 2017.

05 декабря 2017, 20:33

Wall Street: ближайшие уровни поддержки и cопротивления по основным акциям

Компания Тикер Ближайший уровень поддержки Цена Ближайший уровень сопротивления Alcoa Corporation AA 40,00 41,35 50,00 Apple Inc. AAPL 150,00 170,88 175,00 Barrick Gold Corporation ABX 12,50 13,70 15,00 American International Group, Inc. AIG 58,00 59,75 66,00 Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 1100,00 1149,72 1200,00 American Express Company AXP 93,00 99,06 100,00 Boeing Co. BA 255,00 276,21 280,00 Bank of America Corporation BAC 25,00 29,18 30,00 Caterpillar Inc. CAT 135,00 140,85 145,00 Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO 33,00 37,42 38,00 Chevron Corporation CVX 112,00 120,56 122,00 Walt Disney Co. DIS 96,00 107,52 110,00 The Dow Chemical Company DWDP 68,00 72,14 74,00 Ford Motor Co. F 12,00 12,48 13,00 Facebook, Inc. FB 170,00 173,87 185,00 FedEx Corporation FDX 200,00 236,70 240,00 General Electric Company GE 16,00 17,80 21,00 General Motors Company GM 42,00 42,74 46,00 Google Inc. GOOG 960,00 1011,99 1060,00 The Goldman Sachs Group GS 230,00 248,80 250,00 The Home Depot, Inc. HD 160,00 183,24 185,00 Honeywell International Inc. HON 145,00 154,10 156,00 Hewlett-Packard Company HPQ 21,00 21,09 22,50 International Business Machines IBM 145,00 154,89 163,00 Intel Corporation INTC 40,00 43,83 47,00 International Paper Co. IP 53,00 56,96 59,00 Johnson & Johnson JNJ 136,00 140,10 144,00 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM 95,00 106,84 110,00 The Coca-Cola Company KO 45,00 46,30 47,50 McDonald's Corp. MCD 160,00 173,26 175,00 3M Co. MMM 225,00 238,54 245,00 Altria Group Inc. MO 61,00 70,06 70,00 Merck & Co. Inc. MRK 54,00 56,17 57,00 Microsoft Corporation MSFT 80,00 82,21 86,00 Nike Inc. NKE 54,00 59,72 61,00 Pfizer Inc. PFE 34,00 35,69 36,50 Procter & Gamble Co. PG 86,00 91,45 95,00 Starbucks Corporation SBUX 53,00 59,37 60,00 AT&T, Inc. T 33,00 36,86 40,00 The Travelers Companies, Inc. TRV 120,00 135,60 140,00

Выбор редакции
05 декабря 2017, 17:13

Newly Merged DowDuPont Gets A Bullish Call From Goldman

DowDuPont Inc (NYSE: DWDP ) was formed due to the recent merger between Dow Chemical Co (NYSE: DOW ) and E I Du Pont De Nemours And Co (NYSE: DD ). The merger was completed Aug. 31, 2017. About three months ...

05 декабря 2017, 06:00

The Future Economy Project: Advice from Sustainability Experts

Future Economy Future Thinking A roundtable conversation with our advisers. Learn about the future economy project Harvard Business Review interviewed the CEOs and other business leaders who signed up to the Future Economy Project, our initiative spotlighting businesses’ sustainability agendas. We then virtually convened the project’s advisers for a roundtable discussion about what they viewed as the major issues raised in the interviews, and their own counsel for executives wishing to create long-term value through a sustainable business agenda. The discussion with Michael Toffel and Rebecca Henderson of Harvard Business School, Tensie Whelan of NYU’s Stern School of Business, and Andrew Winston of Winston Eco-Strategies has been condensed and edited for clarity. HBR: Of the interviews, what jumped out at you? Toffel:  I thought Paul Polman was spot-on when he was breaking down the challenge of corporate sustainability into tactical and systemic issues. Tactics include, for example, labeling claims and how to be clear about what standards we might want to develop, and also about disclosure, when he mentions materiality. We need tools to assess progress for external stakeholders, consumers, and managers. But then more pressingly, I think, he talks about the need for system change. He highlights the short-term focus of financial markets and of political systems, and also the need to change consumer preferences and habits, as three big areas that need to change at the system level. It’s hard to figure out exactly how we’re going to go about changing these, but I think the first step is identifying the problem. Winston: I agree with Mike that the focus on system change was notable. In essence all the CEOs questioned the current model of shareholder-driven capitalism, as well as highlighted the need to collaborate across systems and value chains. They all lamented the challenge of short-term investor pressure, although they didn’t seem to have a ready solution. Henderson: I was struck by the fact that several of the CEOs noted that despite the fact that many companies are becoming gradually more sustainable, in general it isn’t happening at anything like the necessary speed or scale. It was sobering to see such an informed group remind us how much further we have to go. Whelan: I noticed that many leaders see climate change solely in terms of minimizing risk. But I think the interesting part comes when they start to see it as an opportunity for innovations that are financially beneficial as well as socially beneficial. For example, [Andrew] Liveris talked about the focus Dow [Chemical] has on great chemistry and designing new sustainable product lines and being willing to cannibalize existing products. There’s $12 trillion in business opportunities for solving sustainability challenges. Toffel: The interesting thing about the risk lens is if everyone started paying attention to risks, I suspect it would lead to both more product innovation and investing in more-resilient operations and supply chains. For example, installing a rapidly deployable flood barrier around your campus can help keep your buildings operational during megastorms. And so a risk lens will lead to more adaptation measures, where private investments can yield private returns. But I worry about this crowding out the need to also invest in mitigation to reduce the magnitude of climate change. It’s not clear how much value you add to your organization by, for example, mitigating 10% of your carbon footprint. It could be that it attracts employees who care about this issue, or that it makes management more likely to stay in that organization. And maybe it’ll attract consumers who care about sustainability. But it’s hard to make that case at the scale of mitigation measures that are required. And so we have a classic tragedy of the commons here: Why should a company bother to massively invest in mitigation if everyone is going to share from those gains? This is why mitigation requires government policy mandates, and I think CEOs should try to use their power of persuasion to try to get government to require mitigation — and adaptation. Whelan: Most of the CEOs did talk about policy in the interviews, but their statements were pretty vague. And one of the things I see consistently is that CEOs make big, visionary statements around sustainability, but their lobbyists just focus on small-bore issues such as the part of the tax code or regulation that might benefit their short-term interests. There’s very rarely coordination between the leader’s vision and their lobbyists’ agenda. That needs to change. HBR: Does a CEO have to go through some sort of personal transformation or have some direct experience with nature in order to become a sustainability leader? Toffel: I don’t know if it’s a necessary condition, but you do see these stories with a lot of CEOs that have come out as leaders in this area. It seems like there’s some spark that changes the way they see things, convinces them of the fallacy that maximizing in the short run will necessarily maximize in the long run. A lot of leaders I speak to talk about a transformation they experienced, such as when they became parents or grandparents, or when they became ill. Those life events seemed to change their time horizon. Whelan: Yes, when I was running Rainforest Alliance, we took people from corporations down to the field to see sustainable forestry and sustainable farming in action. I think most executives have no idea of the impact — for good or ill — of their companies. They’re so far removed from it. And so, when you show them in person their potential to help people who are part of the corporate ecosystem, such as the communities producing the raw materials for the products they sell, I think that can be life changing. Winston: Absolutely. I’ve done some research on CEOs, talking to many of these same leaders, and some others. When we asked them about why they care about sustainability, they did mention the business case we’ve all been hammering home for years — and they do believe it. But in reality, it was more personal. They had some awakening through the kind of trips Tensie has taken leaders on, or just in conversations with family. Think of all those Millennials who have a different view on the role of business in society. They’re not just employees or customers for these CEOs — they’re often their kids. Henderson: I’ve seen the same effect in my own work. Whilst those leaders who have made a difference can always walk you through the business case, it’s nearly always intimate exposure to an issue — whether it’s flying over miles and miles of burning forest in Indonesia or learning firsthand about what it’s like to live on the minimum wage — that led them to embrace it in the first place. We tend to think of the existence of a business case as as an immutable feature of reality — but in practice someone usually has to put themselves on the line to discover it. It’s the passion born of real experience that enables them to do so. HBR: The idea of partnering with NGOs came up in many of the interviews. How can these relationships be most fruitful?    Whelan: We’ve seen a sea change in the last 10 years around company and NGO engagement — it’s far more cooperative. I think the elements of a successful partnership are: first, that both parties have aligned goals, expectations, and parameters; second, they design a way to have a common language that respects their different perspectives; and third, the company invests the time and resources required to make the relationship productive, including a dedicated and empowered corporate point person for the NGO. The result will be innovation. For example, when I was at the Rainforest Alliance we worked with a company that had grown bananas for 200 years — using outmoded practices — to redesign the whole process; it became far more efficient, saving them money and reducing erosion, water pollution, and waste. Andrew Liveris Chairman and CEO, the Dow Chemical Company, and Executive Chairman, DowDuPont “Look at sustainability as part of your business model; don’t look at it as a side initiative.” HBR: Andrew Liveris at Dow Chemical seemed to be suggesting that when it comes to regulation, you should align yourself with the toughest regulation out there. Should leaders apply that rule to sustainability labeling by aligning with the strictest requirements that they can find from a credible source? Toffel: There are a lot of challenges to getting labeling right. Which sustainability and social dimensions will you measure, and how do you weigh their importance? There’s also a data problem, because these issues tend to reach into supply chains, and often beyond your direct tier one suppliers.  Whelan: Labeling can be a challenge because it seems every certification body has a different issue they want to emphasize. And some are more effective than others. There is a group called ISEAL Alliance that is an accreditation system for all the third-party nonprofit certification systems; they lay out best practices around stakeholder engagement, complaint resolution, conflict of interest management, auditor corruption, and so on. It’s a start. Winston: On some level, the idea of aligning (or exceeding) regulations is a moot point. When your customers or communities or employees have higher standards, that’s what actually matters. But of course, companies should be lobbying for higher standards for all — especially on climate and carbon. HBR:  Investors loomed large in all these interviews. McKinsey’s Dominic Barton went so far as to say that he sometimes advises CEOs to go find the right investors if they’re getting pushback from ownership. Can you talk a little bit about the relationship between the shareholders and management when it comes to sustainability issues? Winston: Paul Polman and McKinsey’s Dominic Barton both talked about shifting their investor base to include more investors who care about long-term value creation — and Unilever has clearly done that already, with 70% holding the stock for seven years. But it wasn’t clear that these CEOs — or anyone for that matter — have a good solution to the short-term pressure problem at public companies. Whelan: One in every five investment dollars in this country is in ESG investments. Now, ESG is not always rigorously defined, but it shows more and more investors are interested in sustainability.  I think that creates an opportunity for companies to find investors who are looking for sustainable investments. That said, we still have activist investors going after sustainability programs for short-term cost savings. I saw it happen in the coffee sector. Activists went in and bought coffee companies that had done a lot on sustainability and immediately stripped everything out because they were looking for short-term returns. So, I think the investor world has two completely conflicting or diverging strategies right now, which I think is very confusing for CEOs. HBR: Paul Polman shared the idea that because the goal of business is to meet unmet needs, the UN sustainable development goals should guide product development and strategy because they lay out the biggest unmet needs for humanity. Is that a useful tool for other leaders? Winston: Yes, it’s a useful tool for helping companies think broadly about their role in society and where they can plug into the shared challenges, and where they can innovate to create business value by solving a problem. That is, after all, a core reason companies exist — to solve some problem or fill a need for a customer. The [UN] goals just provide some guidance on the biggest needs to build a thriving society — and without a thriving society, there is not thriving business. This is something the leading CEOs like Polman understand. Whelan:  The first corporations in America were railroads, and they were set up to fill a societal need for connecting goods and people within the vast expanse of the country.  And if you think about the major societal challenges confronting us today, the UN sustainable development goals can be a road map that will help businesses identify opportunities to help society and make money while doing so. Henderson: The sustainable development goals are also important because they remind us that meeting them requires systemic change — and that systemic change requires the ability to build real cross-sector partnerships. “Government” is rapidly becoming a dirty word in many parts of the world, and the goals remind us that we need to turn that around, since it’s going to be impossible to meet them without the help of effective, responsive governments. I suspect one of the central questions of our time is whether the private sector can help to make this happen. var pymParent = new pym.Parent('interactiveembed', '/resources/html/infographics/2017/11/future-economy/index.html', {}); pymParent.onMessage('childLoaded', function() { pymParent.sendMessage('setShareUrl', document.URL); });

04 декабря 2017, 21:40

The Future Economy Project: Q&A with Marne Levine

Future Economy Mission-Driven Sustainability Marne Levine is the COO of Instagram (Facebook, Inc.). Previously, she was the vice president of Global Public Policy at Facebook. The company focuses on building environmentally friendly work sites and data centers and improving access to clean energy for all. This interview has been edited and condensed. Learn about the future economy project Levine talked with HBR about her firm’s sustainability efforts as part of the Future Economy Project, an HBR initiative that shares real-world lessons on sustainability leadership. HBR: Why did you decide to pursue a sustainability agenda? LEVINE: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been very clear from the beginning that building a sustainable future is foundational to Facebook’s mission of bringing the world closer together. Without secure energy and a stable climate, we won’t be able to make meaningful progress on other challenges — like connecting the world. And as a company with over 2 billion users, and with 80% of our community outside the U.S., we have a responsibility to lead. When I joined Facebook in 2010, it was already well established that sustainability was central to the way that we operated. That year we decided to design and construct our own data center; one of the most significant energy footprints for a tech company comes from the storage of data, which requires a huge amount of electricity. Before 2010, most of the energy powering these data centers was coming from coal. We designed a data center that was 38% more energy efficient and that cost 24% less to build than a traditional data center. Even more important, in my view, is that we decided to share our designs publicly. Since then, we’ve continued to lead the way in terms of energy efficiency. One amazing statistic is that, for an entire year of one person’s Facebook use, our carbon footprint is less than the impact of boiling a pot of water. But we’re not stopping there. Our goal is to power all new data centers with 100% clean and renewable energy, relying more heavily on wind and solar farms. We also announced that we are switching all electric accounts at our Menlo Park headquarters to Peninsula Clean Energy’s ECO100 option. This means that Facebook is the largest participant in the program, and we are really proud of that. Pursuing a sustainability agenda is a natural extension of our mission, because it means making sure that the communities we serve are healthy and resilient. Andrew Liveris Chairman and CEO, the Dow Chemical Company, and Executive Chairman, DowDuPont “Look at sustainability as part of your business model; don’t look at it as a side initiative.” What are some things that have inspired you in this journey? My personal interest in sustainability started when I was a senior in high school in Cleveland, Ohio (which was a very long time ago!). I took a job working for the local county commissioner, Mary Boyle, and was put on a team charged with reviewing Cleveland’s solid-waste management program to make it more efficient and environmentally friendly. While working on that project, I earned the nickname “Trash Queen,” which certainly wasn’t the most flattering, but I didn’t mind because I loved that job and learned a bunch doing it. That was when I really started to understand the importance of sustainability at the community level. I learned that inefficient waste management could seriously hurt the health of a community — waste in landfills contaminates our land, water, and air and is a huge financial burden to a city. More than anything, I learned that sustainability is local. It impacts people’s livelihoods at the personal and community level. Several years later, in 2001, I was working as chief of staff to then-Harvard University President Larry Summers when we unveiled Harvard’s Sustainability Principles. Larry and his team were, I think, early in realizing that operating our campus in an environmentally sustainable way was not only the right thing to do but also a sound business decision. By instituting environmental impact reductions, we gained important cost efficiencies. Here’s just one example: The Harvard Green Campus Initiative’s Loan Fund offered more than $2,800,000 to facilitate 32 projects that promoted energy- and water-conservation strategies on the Harvard campus. On average, those projects generated enough financial savings to pay back the loan in just three years. I had always been interested in sustainability, and I had always been interested in running efficient organizations, and at Harvard I came to appreciate that the two go hand in hand. Finally, it may be cliché, but it’s true: When you have kids you start to think differently about the kind of world you are passing on to them. My two sons are avid readers and parliamentary-style debaters, and through both activities, they have taken an interest in global warming and sustainability. My husband was one of the earliest investors in alternative energy technologies in the U.S., and so sustainability has been a frequent and consistent dinner-table conversation topic. I’ve listened with awe to the way our children and their friends look at a challenge like this and immediately think, “What can we do to help?” So when I think about sustainability, I think of it not just through the lens of a tech executive or a responsible global citizen, but as a mother who wants a better world for her children. From which stakeholders have you received the most resistance to your sustainability agenda? How have you worked to bring them on board? We’ve been fortunate that our leadership is completely bought in — there is really no question at the leadership level that pursuing a sustainability agenda is the right thing for us to do for our community, for our neighbors, and for our bottom line. The challenge for us is to bring the entire industry along and, especially, to support small and medium-sized businesses that might not have the resources that we do. To address the sustainability challenges of today in a meaningful way, and to achieve the scale of impact we want, we know we need to work with others to get the job done. That’s why we’re so committed to releasing all of our projects as open-source. By publishing construction specifications of our data centers, from mechanical designs to cooling techniques, we can save other businesses time and money and make it easier for them to follow suit. Another way that we are supporting the ecosystem is through our founding membership with the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance (REBA), a collaboration of more than 100 companies working together to scale corporate procurement of clean energy. There’s no pride of ownership in sustainability — all of our children are going to inherit the same planet. Our goal is to help lead the way and to bring as many people along as we can. Voluntary carbon reductions are unlikely to achieve the scale needed to solve climate change — we also need policy. Beyond operationalizing sustainability, what obligation do businesses have to lobby for action and engage in civil society more generally? We need both. Having worked in the public sector at different times over the course of my career, most recently as chief of staff of the National Economic Council under President Obama, I fundamentally believe that policy is an important way to have wide-scale impact. But I also believe that it’s naïve to think that it is the only way or that we have to wait for policy to act. Especially now, at a moment when some policy efforts around climate have stalled, it’s more important than ever for businesses to take the initiative and lead using all the levers at their disposal to do so. As we have seen with Facebook and many other global companies, business can drive change through their operations, supply chains, and partnerships. They can work directly with local utilities to create new ways for all customers to purchase clean energy directly from the utility, such as with green tariffs. In fact, in connection with a new data center we are building in Virginia, we worked with the local utility to create a new green tariff, which will ensure renewable energy solutions are accessible to Facebook and other companies. Through efforts like this, we are not only closer to our goal of powering our data centers with 100% clean and renewable energy, but we’ve helped others too. To solve global climate problems, everyone — business, government, civil society — has to own their piece of the puzzle. We have to work together to get this right. Silicon Valley skews young — do you think your workers care more than others about sustainability? How does that influence the company’s priorities? I’m not sure interest in sustainability is bound as much by age as it is by spirit and commitment. One of the best things about working at a mission-driven organization is that it attracts mission-driven people. Our teams at Facebook and Instagram come to work every day to do something that will, in ways large and small, make the world better. They care deeply about the communities around us and around the world, and sustainability is a big part of that. Many tech executives have started sustainability-oriented philanthropic organizations. Why do you think tech executives seem to elevate this issue particularly? The global sustainability challenges align with the scale and magnitude of the problems the tech community seeks to address, and the spirit of optimism and ingenuity that defines Silicon Valley is well suited to the task at hand. Whether it is connecting the world or developing new zero-emission technologies to power everything from cars to mobile phones, the tech community has proven it is ready and willing to help solve big and complex problems. var pymParent = new pym.Parent('interactiveembed', '/resources/html/infographics/2017/11/future-economy/index.html', {}); pymParent.onMessage('childLoaded', function() { pymParent.sendMessage('setShareUrl', document.URL); });

04 декабря 2017, 15:30

DowDuPont Closes Sale of Certain Corn Seed Assets for $1.1B

The divestment is part of the required regulatory remedies of the DowDuPont (DWDP) merger that closed on Aug 31.

04 декабря 2017, 09:23

Кадры решают все. Как уволить некомпетентных сотрудников

Статья о том, как американские компании оказались заложниками «справедливости» при уволненииях, и о затратах на «раздутые» кадровые службы была опубликована в американском Forbes 28 ноября 1988 года

01 декабря 2017, 16:12

DowDuPont Unit Sets Up Microbiome Venture to Drive Growth

DowDuPont's (DWDP) unit DuPont Nutrition & Health has created Microbiome Venture to develop new microbiome science-based solutions for health and wellness.

01 декабря 2017, 15:07

Dow Chemical sells Dow AgroSciences' Brazil corn seed business to CITIC Agri Fund for $1.1 bln

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

30 ноября 2017, 15:35

DowDuPont's Specialty Products Division Launches Kalrez 9600

DowDuPont's (DWDP) Kalrez 9600 offers longer seal life through enhanced performance properties in a range of high-temperature plasma applications.

Выбор редакции
23 ноября 2017, 00:22

JP Morgan Launches US Dividend ETF

JP Morgan rolls out multi-cap US Dividend ETF.

Выбор редакции
21 ноября 2017, 22:11

Dow Chemical’s CEO on Running an Environmentally Friendly Multinational

Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical, discusses the 120-year-old company’s ambitious sustainability agenda. He says an environmentally driven business model is good for the earth—and the bottom line. Liveris is one of the CEOs contributing to Harvard Business Review’s Future Economy Project, in which leaders detail their company’s efforts to adapt to and mitigate climate change. Download this podcast

21 ноября 2017, 20:18

Wall Street: ближайшие уровни поддержки и cопротивления по основным акциям

Компания Тикер Ближайший уровень поддержки Цена Ближайший уровень сопротивления Alcoa Corporation AA 40,00 41,61 50,00 Apple Inc. AAPL 150,00 173,54 175,00 Barrick Gold Corporation ABX 14,00 13,99 17,00 American International Group, Inc. AIG 58,00 59,80 66,00 Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 1000,00 1137,43 1150,00 American Express Company AXP 90,00 94,19 97,00 Boeing Co. BA 255,00 266,18 267,00 Bank of America Corporation BAC 25,00 26,70 28,00 Caterpillar Inc. CAT 130,00 137,73 140,00 Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO 33,00 36,87 37,00 Chevron Corporation CVX 112,00 115,80 120,00 Walt Disney Co. DIS 96,00 103,09 106,00 The Dow Chemical Company DWDP 68,00 71,66 74,00 Ford Motor Co. F 12,00 12,18 12,50 Facebook, Inc. FB 170,00 181,37 185,00 FedEx Corporation FDX 200,00 216,93 230,00 General Electric Company GE 16,00 17,99 21,00 General Motors Company GM 42,00 44,92 46,00 Google Inc. GOOG 1000,00 1030,12 1050,00 The Goldman Sachs Group GS 235,00 238,10 250,00 The Home Depot, Inc. HD 160,00 171,66 175,00 Honeywell International Inc. HON 140,00 149,12 150,00 Hewlett-Packard Company HPQ 21,00 22,59 23,00 International Business Machines IBM 145,00 152,07 163,00 Intel Corporation INTC 40,00 44,96 47,00 International Paper Co. IP 53,00 54,68 59,00 Johnson & Johnson JNJ 130,00 139,12 144,00 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM 95,00 99,02 102,00 The Coca-Cola Company KO 44,50 45,88 47,50 McDonald's Corp. MCD 160,00 168,81 170,00 3M Co. MMM 225,00 235,11 240,00 Altria Group Inc. MO 61,00 65,90 67,00 Merck & Co. Inc. MRK 54,00 54,65 66,00 Microsoft Corporation MSFT 83,00 83,64 86,00 Nike Inc. NKE 50,00 59,19 60,00 Pfizer Inc. PFE 34,00 35,61 37,00 Procter & Gamble Co. PG 86,00 88,81 95,00 Starbucks Corporation SBUX 53,00 57,22 58,00 AT&T, Inc. T 33,00 34,49 35,00 The Travelers Companies, Inc. TRV 120,00 130,90 135,00

16 ноября 2017, 23:19

15 Small Cities That Are Housing Huge Companies

When it comes to housing businesses, it’s not all about New York and San Francisco. These small cities are centers for some big businesses.

16 ноября 2017, 16:24

DowDuPont to Expand Capacity to Meet DuPont Zytel HTN Demand

DowDuPont's (DWDP) Transportation & Advanced Polymers unit will increase production capacity at its Mechelen site to meet the growing demand for DuPont Zytel HTN.

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