• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1394
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации100
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы750
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
29 мая, 15:12

ManpowerGroup Poised to Grow Despite Prevailing Headwinds

On May 29, we updated the research report on staffing industry player ManpowerGroup Inc. (MAN).

23 мая, 05:27

Bernie backers rage over Calif. Democratic Party chair race

Audit underway after accusations of ballot stuffing, floor protests.

21 мая, 04:02

India vs. Pakistan: Which Army Would Win?

Kyle Mizokami Security, Asia And would it go nuclear? The Indian subcontinent is home to two of the largest armies on Earth. Not only are the armies of India and Pakistan both larger in personnel than the U.S. Army, but they have stood at alert facing one another since the dissolution of the British Indian Army in 1947. The two armies have clashed four times in the past seventy years, and may yet do so again in the future. The Indian army is the primary land force of the Indian armed forces. The army numbers 1.2 million active duty personnel and 990,000 reservists, for a total force strength of 2.1 million. The army’s primary tasks are guarding the borders with Pakistan and China and domestic security—particularly in Kashmir and the Northeast. The army is also a frequent contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions abroad. The army is structured into fourteen army corps, which are further made up of forty infantry, armored, mountain and RAPID (mechanized infantry) divisions. There is approximately one separate artillery brigade per corps, five separate armored brigades, seven infantry brigades and five brigade-sized air defense formations. Infantry and mountain divisions are mostly assigned to the mountainous North and Northeast regions, where manpower intensive counterinsurgency and mountain warfare forces are important, while infantry, RAPID, and armored formations sit on the border opposite Pakistan. Perhaps unusually the Indian army has only one airborne unit, the Parachute Regiment, which is actually an umbrella headquarters for army airborne and special forces. The Parachute Regiment controls seven special-forces battalions and three airborne brigades. The army is equipped from a number of sources, primarily Russia and a growing domestic arms industry, with increasing amounts of Israeli and American weaponry. More than 4,000 tanks equip the country’s ninety-seven armored regiments (the equivalent of American battalions), including 2,400 older T-72 tanks, 1,600 T-90 tanks, and approximately 360 Arjun Mk.1 and Mk.2 tanks. Complementing the T-72/90 tanks in armored and mechanized infantry formations are BMP-2 mechanized infantry combat vehicles. Read full article

19 мая, 17:27

How Russia and China Almost Started a Nuclear War

Robert Farley Security, Asia Who would have won?  China’s manpower advantage didn’t mean that the PLA could sustain an offensive into the USSR. The Chinese lacked the logistics and airpower necessary to seize substantial amounts of Soviet territory. Moreover, the extremely long Sino-Soviet border gave the Soviets ample opportunity for response. With a NATO attack unlikely, the Soviets could have transferred substantial forces from Europe, attacking into Xinjiang and points west. The most critical avenue of potential advance lay in Manchuria, where the Red Army had launched a devastating, lightning quick offensive in the waning days of World War II. Despite its size, the PLA of 1969 had no better hope of stopping such an offensive than the Kwantung Army had in 1945, and the loss of Manchuria would have proven devastating to China’s economic power and political legitimacy. In any case, Soviet airpower would have made short work of the Chinese air force, subjecting Chinese cities, communication centers and military bases to severe air attack. Americans tend to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis as the most dangerous moment in Cold War brinksmanship. Despite some tense moments, Washington and Moscow resolved that crisis with only the death of U.S. Air Force pilot Maj. Rudolph Anderson Jr. Seven years later, in March 1969, a contingent of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers raided a Soviet border outpost on Zhenbao Island, killing dozens and injuring scores. The incident brought Russia and China to the brink of war, a conflict that might have led to the use of nuclear weapons. But after two weeks of clashes, the conflict trailed off. What if the brief 1969 conflict between China and the Soviet Union had escalated? History The incident on Zhenbao Island, where the initial ambush and the bulk of the fighting occurred, represented the nadir of Soviet-Chinese relations. Just ten years earlier, Beijing and Moscow had stood hand in hand as bulwarks of the Communist world. Struggles over ideology, leadership and resources, however, resulted in a sharp split between the allies that had global repercussions. The split exacerbated territorial disputes that had existed since Tsarist and Imperial times. The long, poorly demarcated border left numerous gray zones in which China and the USSR both claimed sovereignty. Read full article

Выбор редакции
18 мая, 14:00

AI Is Taking Away Jobs, But The Rise Of More Multibillion-Dollar Companies Is Just Starting

It is becoming easier and easier to create a successful business without the blessing of industry giants or, for that matter, much manpower.

17 мая, 19:01

Broader boundaries for foreign investment

SHANGHAI was second only to London in 2015 as a preferred investment site for foreign money, according to a KPMG report, and the city aims to keep its high profile after attracting 15 percent of foreign

15 мая, 16:06

Virtual trainer for robots and drones developed in Russia

A sole virtual battlefield that provides the means for testing robots and drones has been developed for the Russian Army, Kronstadt Group CEO, Armen Isaakyan, told TASS in an interview. "We have developed a new version of the Combat virtual trainer that now includes drones and robots and is more flexible and able to integrate with other developers’ synthetic trainers," he said. The virtual battlefield includes the Combat virtual trainer and a tool for integrating other trainers with the virtual models of any objects. The Kronstadt Group is now working on 3D visualization and a virtual map for the trainer. "Combining mathematical models with the visual display system in a sole virtual 3D space with a realistic environment makes it possible to model and optimize the operation of joint force groups, including manpower and any equipment such as helicopters, tanks, armored personnel carriers, drones, and robots," Isaakyan explained. The virtual battleground provides the means for fine-tuning robot functions and detecting errors right at the design or pilot stage. "This, no doubt, cannot fully replace field testing, but is very important for developing new technologies and products," he stressed. Any vehicles - land, sea and air - can be integrated into the virtual battlefield. It can be effectively used for a joint force group, for instance, a brigade. Read more: New Russian military drone launches directly from missiles

13 мая, 15:03

Why France’s Maginot Line Wasn’t a Stupid Idea

Michael Peck Security, Europe The Maginot Line arose neither from French cowardice nor from stupidity. “Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity,” George Patton said. “If mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, anything made by man can be overcome.” No doubt Patton was thinking of the Maginot Line, which has gone down as a salutary lesson in why expensive fortifications are a bad idea. But with all due respect to Ol’ Blood and Guts (“our blood and his guts,” as Patton’s men used to complain), that’s misreading history. The Maginot Line arose neither from French cowardice nor stupidity. It was conceived because of babies—or rather, a lack of babies. France in 1939 had a population of about forty million. Germany had a population of about seventy million. As the Germans themselves learned at the hands of the Soviets, fighting a numerically superior enemy is dangerous. France’s birth rate had actually been declining since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. But World War I worsened the problem. France lost about 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million wounded, while Germany lost two million dead and also 4.2 million wounded. But with almost twice the population, Germany was left with a larger manpower base. As the euphoria of victory in 1918 began to fade, French planners grimly contemplated population graphs predicting the pool of draft-age young men would hit a nadir in the 1930s. What to do? One solution was to form alliances with the new eastern European states, and even the Soviet Union, to threaten Germany’s eastern border. Another was to count on Britain fighting alongside France to stop a German invasion, as in 1914. Neither would save France in 1940. That left the traditional solution for a weaker power: the shovel and the concrete mixer. Fortifications are a force multiplier that allow a weaker army to defend against a stronger attacker, or defend part of its territory with minimum forces while concentrating the bulk of its troops for an attack somewhere else. Read full article

11 мая, 14:00

What Happens to the FBI's Russia Investigation Now?

One way to derail an inquiry is to deprive it of resources.

11 мая, 14:00

What Happens to the FBI's Russia Investigation Now?

One way to derail an inquiry is to deprive it of resources.

10 мая, 01:59

California takes center stage in battle for House majority

Democrats and Republicans are pouring manpower and money into the state ahead of the 2018 midterms.

03 мая, 06:13

Warren polishes national profile ahead of 2020

When Donald Trump suggested to a National Rifle Association crowd in Atlanta on Friday that he might face a challenge from Elizabeth Warren in three years, he voiced a thought shared by political pros in both parties. Between her coast-to-coast book tour, a series of high-profile speeches and greater behind-the-scenes involvement in setting the party’s direction in Washington, the Massachusetts progressive the president derides as “Pocahontas” is providing plenty of evidence that she may be poised to go national after her Senate reelection campaign in 2018. Warren — a fundraising juggernaut, an antagonist of big banks and a frequent GOP sparring partner — is primarily focused on crafting anti-Trump tactics on Capitol Hill, supporting her more electorally endangered colleagues and keeping an eye on her own backyard just in case a serious challenger emerges. But she’s also doing everything she needs to do to prepare for a presidential run just in case, cutting a noticeably high public profile and harnessing her political celebrity to shape the party’s future. It’s a future in which many expect she may be running for president, or at least to better position herself to shape the party’s priorities in the event she doesn’t run. “She has a very legitimate claim to one of the fundamental arguments of our time, which is how you reverse the downward pressure on the middle class, and different people have different answers to that, but she was on this issue a long time ago, so she really rose to prominence on this issue,” said David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s top political adviser in 2008 and an architect of his rise to the presidency. “So given the saliency of it, it’s not surprising that she should be in the forefront on these discussions, and in this fight. The absence of a strong economic message was an obvious defect in 2016, so I’m sure she will have a role.” “I look at the U.S. Senate as a parlor of prospective presidential candidates, and obviously her name is among the most prominent among them,” added Axelrod, who said he had coffee with Warren a few months back but hasn’t talked to her since. As she hawks “This Fight Is Our Fight” — her 11th book and a New York Times best-seller — Warren has accepted invitations to speak to prominent left-leaning constituency groups like the NAACP and EMILY’s List, as well as to a conference later this month hosted by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank that’s a showcase for potential presidential hopefuls. Along with that stature, her torrid fundraising has placed her in the top tier of national Democratic figures of influence. Using both in-person appeals and a growing online backing, she brought in more money than any other senator in the first quarter of 2017 — much of it raised online after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell silenced her on the Senate floor as she opposed the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. She subsequently used her leadership PAC to dole out $10,000 checks to a wide range of vulnerable Senate colleagues in April, according to previously unreported federal filings, solidifying her status as a top fundraising “get” for her colleagues. Before she took the stage at the NAACP’s annual dinner late last month, for example, she swung by a quick closed-door $25-per-ticket fundraiser for Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow. The event was expected to bring in just a few hundred local Democrats — 915 showed up instead. That fundraising isn’t set to stop anytime soon: She’s due back in California for another big-money swing in June, multiple people familiar with the plans told Politico. There, she’ll appear with a handful of the party’s most prominent political financiers, including Esprit founder and close Clinton friend Susie Tompkins Buell and Guy Saperstein, the attorney and Oakland Athletics part-owner who offered her $1 million to run for president in 2016. In Washington, Warren is playing an increasingly significant role in helping shape the Trump resistance after initially angering grass-roots supporters by voting to allow Ben Carson’s nomination as housing secretary to proceed in January, before apologizing. She’s been surfacing more on national television and appearing regularly at quietly organized, previously unreported private meetings with progressive group leaders that Oregon’s Jeff Merkley has started hosting in his Senate office to get everyone on the same page. Fellow elected leaders and strategists say Warren advocates that the party do a better job of picking its fights against the new president, while raising the alarm about under-the-radar White House and GOP moves she feels aren’t getting enough attention. That tactic mirrors the one advocated by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former Barack Obama White House chief of staff and a prominent party strategist with whom she recently sat down — at his request — while on her book tour. “I don’t get any sense that we’re in the Battle Plan Stage One of a presidentialrun,” said Neera Tanden, the CAP president and a Hillary Clinton ally who said she speaks with Warren regularly. “I think she really is trying to help create some centrifugal forces within the party to take on Trump and deal with the problems in front of us.” But, Tanden added, “We’re in a situation where, without the White House, Democrats and progressives are looking for leaders who will take Trump on. [Warren] was that person before the election. She is that person now.” As a result of that new role, her extensive fundraising network, and her growing online following, few serious conversations about Democrats’ 2020 primary get far before they settle on Warren’s name. The lessons of the 2016 election are seared into the minds of those surrounding Warren, after she opted not to run and much of the early-voting state manpower and political infrastructure dedicated to drafting her turned into the foundation for Bernie Sanders’ organization. “I adore her; I thought she was the candidate we should have run in 2016,” said Saperstein, explaining that in 2020 Warren is now his second choice for the presidency, behind former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart. “The problem we had in 2016 is there was so much effort to clear the field for Hillary, and it was a very unhealthy thing.” Declining to endorse either Sanders or Clinton until after the primary, Warren angered some die-hard supporters of the Vermont senator, but — in the minds of her political allies — she managed to shape some of the primary debate around her, tugging the economic conversation to the left. Even against the backdrop of a prospective 2020 field of over two dozen Democrats, Warren’s political following is matched only by those of Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden, potentially allowing her to direct the 2020 contest in a similar way. But that, and a recent book tour that has taken her from New York to Boston to Chicago to Los Angeles, has spurred Massachusetts Republicans to seize on Warren’s national moves, eyeing her as potentially vulnerable in 2018 after a January MassINC/WBUR poll showed that 46 percent of the state’s voters said someone else should have a chance at the Senate. “She’s pretty much been nationally focused exclusively since she got elected, running around the country raising money, talking in extremely hyperpartisan doublespeak and really largely ignoring our home state,” said Kirsten Hughes, the Massachusetts GOP chair. No high-profile Republican has yet stepped up to the plate, but Warren isn’t taking chances. She’s held town hall meetings in her home state and has three Massachusetts commencement speeches scheduled for this spring, working with a campaign team that includes media consultant Mandy Grunwald, strategist Marla Romash, and adviser Kristen Orthman, an alum of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, while her former chief of staff, Mindy Myers, runs the Senate Democrats’ campaign wing this cycle. The senator also frequently travels with her state director, Roger Lau, and relies on the work of her digital director, Lauren Miller. Even if a serious Republican challenge to Warren’s reelection in 2018 never takes shape, national GOP leaders have identified that race as a prime opportunity to test lines of attack on her, starting with portraying her as an out-of-touch Harvard elitist whose political views are too far to the left. In recent years, she’s campaigned for a wide range of Democratic candidates in states the party needs, they note, but Senate hopefuls from Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes to Ohio’s Ted Strickland have fallen short. Viewing her national book tour as a delicate endeavor at a time when Democrats continue to struggle to connect with middle-class voters, the GOP opposition research group America Rising is treating her much as it did Clinton in the run-up to 2016, monitoring her media appearances and badgering her at every turn in an attempt to tarnish her national image. “We learned from our experience with Secretary Clinton that the earlier you start, the more chance you have for these narratives to sink in with the electorate,” said Colin Reed, the group’s executive director. In a sign of how both sides are eager to leverage Warren for their own political advantage, though, her own party decided to use that GOP push as an alarm in itself. “A shadowy conservative group called America Rising just announced new attacks on Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying they’re planning to do everything in their power to ‘make Warren’s life difficult,’” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee emailed party members last month. “Now we’re counting on our best supporters to show we’ve got Senator Warren’s back.”

01 мая, 04:45

Congress strikes budget deal that shortchanges Trump

The bill doesn’t include money for the border wall or block funds for ‘sanctuary cities.’

28 апреля, 02:11

Trump caves on the wall — and Democrats think he will again

The game of chicken between the White House and Democrats over government funding ended before it began.

27 апреля, 12:25

Hopes for Trump's military buildup dimming

Defense hawks are starting to lose hope in President Donald Trump’s promises of a “historic” military buildup.Trump vowed during the campaign to make the military so big and powerful that “nobody — absolutely nobody — is going to mess with us,” and since his inauguration he has rattled sabers at North Korea, launched an airstrike on Syria and dropped an enormous bomb on Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan.But nearly 100 days into his presidency, Republican legislative stumbles have fueled doubts that Congress will approve the $84 billion defense boost he has proposed for this fiscal year and next — a jump that many advocates have already slammed as too small.And without serious new spending, military leaders have warned Congress, the services’ readiness will continue to erode.For example, three Navy ships set to deploy this year to Europe and the Middle East will stay in their home ports without the supplemental funds Trump requested. And the Marine Corps has said it will have to ground all of its planes from July to the end of September unless Congress gives it more money in a fiscal 2017 spending bill.Over the long term, Trump’s plans to grow the military simply won’t happen without more money.Building and operating a 355-ship Navy would cost $102 billion a year through 2047, about a third more than the amount appropriated in fiscal 2016, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. And personnel costs for the Army and Marines would increase dramatically under Trump’s proposal, which would add more than 70,000 troops between the two services.“The industry is certainly frustrated that the initial hopefulness has not borne out, or at least not borne out yet,” said Doug Berenson, a managing director of the defense systems practice for the consulting firm Avascent. “A lot of people in the industry, myself included, sort of allowed ourselves to get ahead of ourselves in the first weeks following the election without fully realizing the budget politics that have been with us for the last five or six years are not completely gone.”The dimmed hopes are already having an impact on defense companies, which are holding back on major investments or hiring decisions until they see whether the boosted Pentagon budgets materialize, said Marc Numedahl, executive vice president at the lobbying firm Crossroads Strategies.For example, he said, shipbuilders would need to ramp up to handle the type of buildup Trump has called for, including expanding the Navy to at least 350 ships. That would include modernizing shipyards and hiring skilled workers like welders, who can take years to train. But he doesn't expect the defense industry to invest big money until it’s sure more federal dollars are coming.“Industry is going to be ready to pull the trigger once they know that the government customer has the resources to do it,” he said.Besides expanding the 275-ship Navy, Trump has called for growing the Army and Marine Corps by 60,000 and 12,000 troops, respectively. And he would buy at least 100 more combat planes for the Air Force.In one of his first executive orders, the president asked the Pentagon to review other areas where it could improve and invest, addressing shortfalls like delayed maintenance, insufficient training and a lack of spare parts or consumables like fuel and ammunition, as well as any manpower needs.The White House referred a question about hopes for defense spending to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. And neither did the Pentagon.Some key lawmakers aren’t giving up hope, though, despite obstacles such as the spending limits imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act and continued Democratic resistance to spending more on defense without an increase for nondefense needs."I think arguments about what we need on the defense side are very compelling, " said Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), who chairs the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. “It's just a matter of how do we find that pathway in order to get there.”Yet the signs are not encouraging to a number of close observers of the defense budget wars of recent years — despite Republican control of the White House and Congress, and even though both parties largely agree that national security threats require more military spending.The competing GOP defense-hawk and budget-hawk camps have yet to find common ground, and it's increasingly doubtful that Democrats will support lifting the Pentagon’s spending limits unless domestic programs receive equal increases.“Clearly, I think people have dialed back some of the initially exuberant expectations because getting things done in D.C. is hard and the Budget Control Act is still the law of the land,” said Roman Schweizer, an analyst with the Cowen Washington Research Group.As a result, Trump's supplemental request for Pentagon funding for the rest of this fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, and his broad outline for fiscal 2018’s defense spending face serious hurdles on Capitol Hill.The supplemental, which seeks $30 billion in extra defense spending, would pay for that increase mostly with cuts to nondefense programs — widely considered a nonstarter with Democrats. It would also require Congress to renegotiate the Budget Control Act caps for this fiscal year, which is already nearly half over.American Enterprise Institute analyst Mackenzie Eaglen predicted that Congress will pass a smaller supplemental of about $10 billion to $15 billion and fund it through the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations fund, a separate war account that is not subject to the budget caps.Trump's major effort to boost the military, in the form of a new budget for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, faces similar obstacles even before the details have been fully fleshed out.It calls for spending $603 billion in fiscal 2018, which is roughly $54 billion above the levels mandated by the budget caps — but much lower than many hawks in the defense industry and Congress had hoped for. And again, Trump wants to pay for it by cutting domestic programs, further alienating Democrats.Democrats argue that domestic spending should be higher, partly to ensure full funding for agencies that play critical roles in national security, such as the FBI and CIA. They say the additional money would also invest in education and nutrition to make sure the military has a qualified pool of recruits for the next generation of service members.Democratic support could be critical for any defense boost: Congress’ failure to pass Trump’s initial health care bill showed that Republicans can’t necessarily push through their legislative agenda on their own, especially in the Senate, where many actions require 60 votes.But Wittman told POLITICO that any defense spending increase will probably have to fit within the current caps. That means lawmakers would have to cut from other parts of the discretionary budget or from entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.Still, he said he’s optimistic that "that lawmakers can set aside differences for the good of the nation."Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), chairman of Armed Services’ Readiness Subcommittee, likewise said he hopes lawmakers will unite on a solution given the threats facing the country."I firmly believe we can have a bipartisan approach to ensuring that our troops have the training, equipment and resources they need," he said. "Given the current threat situation — North Korea, Syria, Iran, ISIS, Iraq, Afghanistan — I believe this year we can take the first step towards reversing the harmful decline."The partisan wrangling is a letdown for some leading advocates who had been optimistic that the annual fight over defense spending would end under the new Republican administration.“Was there some hope that perhaps an increase in the defense budget would be decoupled from the nondefense domestic budget? Yes, absolutely,” said Dan Stohr, a spokesman for the Aerospace Industries Association, which represents more than 300 aerospace companies. “National security is one of the foremost duties for our government. Funding it appropriately should not be held hostage to other spending or other priorities.”But even what Trump has proposed falls far short of what the association had hoped.AIA has advocated for a $640 billion defense spending bill for 2018, in line with that proposed by the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).Stohr said Trump’s $603 billion proposal “would be better than what we would currently experience under the BCA. However, because of the long-term negative effects of operating under the budget control caps, we should get more than that."Still, Eaglen predicted spirits could be further dashed once Trump releases the full details of his spending plans.“I’d say the mood is dampening but not dimming quite yet,” Eaglen said. “For now, it’s a hopeful wait-and-see, especially for the 2018 budget details. But if those disappoint come May, as I expect they will, then it will be a very different tune sung at that time.”One key portent will come this week as Congress faces Friday's deadline to either enact a 2017 appropriations bill, pass another continuing spending resolution or shut down the government, Crossroads Strategies’ Numedahl said."If they’re able to get through the end of the month and get to a way forward with defense spending, that shows a good path forward for [fiscal] '18 and '19,” he said. “If they get bogged down and go to a full year CR, which I don’t expect to happen, but if they do I think that’s when industry starts to lose a little faith in this big defense buildup.”

21 апреля, 17:55

Earnings Reports In Focus

Earnings Reports In Focus

21 апреля, 17:27

Deluge of Q1 Earnings Results: GE, HON, MAN, SWK, STI

To cap off this first week of a major deluge of Q1 earnings this season, we see results from plenty of S&P 500 companies which lead their respective industries.

21 апреля, 13:46

Сегодня в США ожидается публикация данных по рынку недвижимости, нескольких отчетностей

В пятницу, 21 апреля, в Соединенных Штатах Америки ожидается публикация лишь одного важного макроэкономического показателя. Так, в 17:00 МСК выйдут данные по продажам домов на вторичном рынке за март. Ожидается, что показатель составил 5,60 млн после 5,48 млн в феврале. Из второстепенной статистики можно отметить индекс деловой активности в промышленности за апрель. Кроме того, в 16:30 МСК выступит глава ФРБ Миннеаполиса Нил Кашкари. Что касается календаря корпоративных отчетностей, то здесь следует отметить General Electric, Honeywell International, Manpower, Schlumberger и SunTrust Banks, которые представят свои финансовые результаты до открытия торгов. К 13:25 МСК фьючерсы на индекс S&P 500 торгуются с повышением на 0,06%.

21 апреля, 12:30

Сегодня в США ожидается публикация данных по рынку недвижимости, нескольких отчетностей

В пятницу, 21 апреля, в Соединенных Штатах Америки ожидается публикация лишь одного важного макроэкономического показателя. Так, в 17:00 МСК выйдут данные по продажам домов на вторичном рынке за март. Ожидается, что показатель составил 5,60 млн после 5,48 млн в феврале. Из второстепенной статистики можно отметить индекс деловой активности в промышленности за апрель. Кроме того, в 16:30 МСК выступит глава ФРБ Миннеаполиса Нил Кашкари. Что касается календаря корпоративных отчетностей, то здесь следует отметить General Electric, Honeywell International, Manpower, Schlumberger и SunTrust Banks, которые представят свои финансовые результаты до открытия торгов. К 13:25 МСК фьючерсы на индекс S&P 500 торгуются с повышением на 0,06%.

20 апреля, 23:54

The Top Earnings Charts to End the Week

Are you trading earnings season? These are some of the best charts this week.