• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1717
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы813
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации145
      • Показать ещё
      Разное1136
      • Показать ещё
      Формат84
      Показатели148
      • Показать ещё
      Люди289
      • Показать ещё
      Издания168
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы2
Выбор редакции
26 марта, 07:41

BMW стал третьим в мире производителем электромобилей

Китайские компании пока лидируют по объемам выпуска автомобилей с электрическими и гибридными двигателями, но немецкий автопром в 2019 году сможет их обогнать, считает McKinsey.

25 марта, 03:22

Why Does America Spend So Much on Health Care?

America spends way more on health care than other countries -- and it gets worse outcomes than some. Where is all of that money going?

24 марта, 16:09

Как перейти на удаленную работу и остаться человеком — рекомендации по сохранению продуктивности

Традиционные офисы по всему миру теряют свои позиции: согласно исследованию McKinsey, всего через несколько лет половина наемных сотрудников перейдет на удаленную работу: в минувшем году их доля уже превысила 40%. Здесь Россия не отстает от мировых трендов — в 2020 году 20% рабочих мест в России станут виртуальными, считают аналитики J’son & Partners Consulting.У удаленного офиса действительно немало преимуществ, но важно помнить — привычный тайм-менеджмент и правила организации рабочего пространства работают совсем иначе: даже самые ответственные и мотивированные сотрудники сталкиваются с трудностями. Совместно с «”Билайн” Бизнес» vc.ru подготовил чек-лист рекомендаций, которые помогут сохранять продуктивность и выстроить адекватный баланс между работой и личной жизнью.Материал подготовлен при поддержке «”Билайн” Бизнес»

23 марта, 23:31

Will the Tesla Model 3 Beat the Competition in 2017?

Tesla still appears to be well ahead of the pack.

21 марта, 14:36

Население мира: где живет больше всего людей?

Наверное, многие слышали о том, насколько неравномерно распределено население в мире. И фактически большая часть населения Земли живет на очень ограниченной территории, которая захватывает Китай, Индию, Японию и часть других стран Юго-Восточной Азии.

21 марта, 14:36

Население мира: где живет больше всего людей

Наверное, многие слышали о том, насколько неравномерно распределено население в мире. И фактически большая часть населения Земли живет на очень ограниченной территории, которая захватывает Китай, Индию, Японию и часть других стран юго-восточной Азии.

20 марта, 19:59

Shiller's CAPE: Is It Really Just B.S.? – Part 1

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, One of the hallmarks of very late stage bull market cycles is the inevitable bashing of long-term valuation metrics. In the late 90’s if you were buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock it was mocked as “driving Dad’s old Pontiac.” In 2007, valuation metrics were being dismissed because the markets were flush with liquidity, interest rates were low and “Subprime was contained.” Today, we once again see repeated arguments as to why “this time is different” because of the “Central Bank put.”  First, let me just say that I have tremendous respect for the guys at HedgEye. They are insightful and thoughtful in their analysis and well worth your time to read. However, a recent article by HedgEye made a very interesting point that bears discussion. “Meanwhile, a number of stubborn bears out there continue to make the specious argument that the U.S. stock market is expensive. ‘At 22 times trailing twelve-month earnings,’ they ask, ‘how on earth could an investor possibly buy the S&P 500?’   The answer is simple, really. Valuation is not a catalyst.” They are absolutely right. Valuations are not a catalyst. They are the fuel. But the debate over the value, and current validity, of the Shiller’s CAPE ratio, is not new. Critics argue that the earnings component of CAPE is just too low, changes to accounting rules have suppressed earnings, and the financial crisis changed everything.  This was a point made by Wade Slome previously: “If something sounds like BS, looks like BS, and smells like BS, there’s a good chance you’re probably eyeball-deep in BS. In the investment world, I encounter a lot of very intelligent analysis, but at the same time I also continually step into piles of investment BS. One of those piles of BS I repeatedly step into is the CAPE ratio (Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings) created by Robert Shiller.” Let’s break down Wade’s arguments against Dr. Shiller’s CAPE P/E individually. Shiller’s Ratio Is Useless? Wade states: “The short answer…not very. For example, if investors followed the implicit recommendation of the CAPE for the periods when Shiller’s model showed stocks as expensive they would have missed a more than quintupling (+469% ex-dividends) in the S&P 500 index. Over a shorter timeframe (2009 – 2014) the S&P 500 is up +114% ex-dividends (+190% since March 2009).” Wade’s analysis is correct.  However, the problem is that valuation models are not, and were never meant to be, “market timing indicators.”  The vast majority of analysts assume that if a measure of valuation (P/E, P/S, P/B, etc.) reaches some specific level it means that: The market is about to crash, and; Investors should be in 100% cash. This is incorrect. Valuation measures are simply just that – a measure of current valuation. More, importantly, it is a much better measure of “investor psychology” and a manifestation of the “greater fool theory.” If you “overpay” for something today, the future net return will be lower than if you had paid a discount for it. Think about housing prices for a moment as shown in the chart below. There are two things to take away from the chart above in relation to valuation models.  The first is that if a home was purchased at any time (and not sold) when the average 12-month price was above the long-term linear trend, the forward annualized returns were significantly worse than if the home was purchased below that trend. Secondly, if a home was purchased near the peak in valuations, forward returns are likely to be extremely low, if not negative, for a very long time. This is the same with the financial markets. When investors “pay” too much for an investment, future returns will suffer. “Buy cheap and sell dear” is not just some Wall Street slogan printed on a coffee mug, but a reality of virtually all of the great investors of our time in some form or another. Cliff Asness discussed this issue in particular stating: “Ten-year forward average returns fall nearly monotonically as starting Shiller P/E’s increase. Also, as starting Shiller P/E’s go up, worst cases get worse and best cases get weaker.   If today’s Shiller P/E is 22.2, and your long-term plan calls for a 10% nominal (or with today’s inflation about 7-8% real) return on the stock market, you are basically rooting for the absolute best case in history to play out again, and rooting for something drastically above the average case from these valuations.” We can prove that by looking at forward 10-year total returns versus various levels of PE ratios historically. Asness continues: “It [Shiller’s CAPE] has very limited use for market timing (certainly on its own) and there is still great variability around its predictions over even decades. But, if you don’t lower your expectations when Shiller P/E’s are high without a good reason — and in my view, the critics have not provided a good reason this time around — I think you are making a mistake.” While, Wade is correct that investors who got out of the market using Shiller’s P/E ratio would have missed the run in the markets from 2009 to present, those same individuals most likely sold at the bottom of the market in 2008 and only recently began to return as shown by net equity inflows below. In other words, they missed the “run up” anyway. Investor psychology has more to do with long-term investment outcomes than just about anything else. What valuations tell us, is that at current levels investors are strictly betting on there always being someone to pay more in the future for an asset than they paid today.  Huckster Alert… It is not surprising that due to the elevated level of P/E ratios since the turn of the century, which have been fostered by one financial bubble after the next due to Federal Reserve interventions, there has been a growing chorus of views suggesting that valuations are no longer as relevant. There is also the issue of the expanded use of forward operating earnings. First, it is true that P/E’s have been higher over the last decade due to the aberration in prices versus earnings leading up to the 2000 peak. However, as shown in the chart below, the “reversion” process of that excessive overvaluation is still underway. It is likely the next mean reverting event will complete this process. Cliff directly addressed the issue of the abuse of forward operating earnings. “Some outright hucksters still use the trick of comparing current P/E’s based on ‘forecast’ ‘operating’ earnings with historical average P/E’s based on total trailing earnings. In addition, some critics say you can’t compare today to the past because accounting standards have changed, and the long-term past contains things like World Wars and Depressions. While I don’t buy it, this argument applies equally to the one-year P/E which many are still somehow willing to use. Also, it’s ironic that the chief argument of the critics, their big gun that I address exhaustively above [from the earlier post], is that the last 10 years are just too disastrous to be meaningful (recall they are actually mildly above average).” Cliff is correct, of course, as it is important to remember that when discussing valuations, particularly regarding historic over/undervaluation, it is ALWAYS based on trailing REPORTED earnings. This is what is actually sitting on the bottom line of corporate income statements versus operating earnings, which is “what I would have earned if XYZ hadn’t happened.” Beginning in the late 90’s, as the Wall Street casino opened its doors to the mass retail public, use of forward operating earning estimates to justify extremely overvalued markets came into vogue. However, the problem with forward operating earning estimates is they are historically wrong by an average of 33%. To wit: “The biggest single problem with Wall Street, both today and in the past, is the consistent disregard of the possibilities for unexpected, random events. In a 2010 study, by the McKinsey Group, they found that analysts have been persistently overly optimistic for 25 years. During the 25-year time frame, Wall Street analysts pegged earnings growth at 10-12% a year when in reality earnings grew at 6% which, as we have discussed in the past, is the growth rate of the economy.” Ed Yardeni published the two following charts which shows analysts are always overly optimistic in their estimates. “This is why using forward earnings estimates as a valuation metric is so incredibly flawed – as the estimates are always overly optimistic roughly 33% on average. Furthermore, the reason that earnings only grew at 6% over the last 25 years is because the companies that make up the stock market are a reflection of real economic growth. Stocks cannot outgrow the economy in the long term…remember that.   The McKenzie study noted that on average ‘analysts’ forecasts have been almost 100% too high’ and this leads investors into making much more aggressive bets in the financial markets.” The consistent error rate in forward earnings projections makes using such data dangerous when making long-term investments. This is why trailing reported earnings is the only “honest” way to approach valuing financial markets. Importantly, long-term investors should be abundantly aware of what the future expected returns will be when buying into overvalued markets. Bill Hester recently wrote a very good note in this regard in response to critics of Shiller’s CAPE ratio and future annualized returns: “We feel no particular obligation defend the CAPE ratio. It has a strong long-term relationship to subsequent 10-year market returns. And it’s only one of numerous valuation indicators that we use in our work – many which are considerably more reliable. All of these valuation indicators – particularly when record-high profit margins are accounted for – are sending the same message: The market is steeply overvalued, leaving investors with the prospect of low, single-digit long-term expected returns.“ As clearly stated throughout this missive, fundamental valuation metrics are not, and were never meant to be, market timing indicators. This was a point made by Dr. Robert Shiller himself in an interview with Henry Blodgett: “John Campbell, who’s now a professor at Harvard, and I presented our findings first to the Federal Reserve Board in 1996, and we had a regression, showing how the P/E ratio predicts returns. And we had scatter diagrams, showing 10-year subsequent returns against the CAPE, what we call the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio. And that had a pretty good fit. So I think the bottom line that we were giving – and maybe we didn’t stress or emphasize it enough – was that it’s continual. It’s not a timing mechanism, it doesn’t tell you – and I had the same mistake in my mind, to some extent — wait until it goes all the way down to a P/E of 7, or something.” Currently, there is clear evidence that future expectations should be significantly lower than the long-term historical averages. Do current valuation levels suggest you should be all in cash? No. However, it does suggest that a more cautious stance to equity allocations and increased risk management will likely offset much of the next “reversion” when it occurs. My job is to protect investment capital from major market reversions and meet investment returns anchored to retirement planning projections. Not paying attention to rising investment risks, or adjusting for lower expected future returns, are detrimental to both of those objectives. Next week, I will introduce a modified version of the Shiller CAPE ratio which is more constructive for shorter-term outlooks.

20 марта, 15:27

Число городов-миллионников в Китае превысило сотню

По данным Demographics Research Group при Университете Вирджинии, число китайских городов с населением более 1 млн человек превысило сотню и составило 102. Благодаря незамедляющейся урбанизации в КНР число крупных городов лишь продолжит расти. По прогнозам McKinsey Global Institute, уже к 2025 году число городов с населением более 1 млн человек вырастет вдвое. Эксперты, опрошенные The Guardian, называют сразу несколько причин высоких темпов урбанизации в стране. Это и целенаправленная политика властей, которые стимулируют людей активнее перебираться в города с развитым производством, и улучшение городской инфраструктуры в Китае, что само по себе привлекает туда все больше сельских жителей. Кроме того, многие китайские компании, например Alibaba или Foxconn, размещают свои новые производственные центры в более глубинных районах страны с недорогой, по сравнению с развитыми…

18 марта, 14:18

GOP assault on Obamacare rattles workers in California's 'gig economy'

The health-care law's unraveling is expected to shake workers in non-permanent jobs around the country, but probably no place is more affected than the Golden state.

Выбор редакции
18 марта, 00:00

Интерактивная презентация программы Сколково MBA

18 марта на кампусе бизнес-школы Сколково пройдет интерактивная презентация программы Сколково MBA. Благодаря новому формату гости мероприятия почувствуют себя студентами программы и узнают, как проходят полтора года обучения в бизнес-школе. Программа мероприятия 10:30—11:00 Первый учебный день.  Знакомство с партнерами по команде, которые, возможно, станут будущими одногруппниками. 12:00—13:00 Фундамент будущих успехов: работа в группах, решение бизнес-кейсов.  Участники узнают обо всех образовательных модулях, профессорах и сквозных курсах, а также зачем студенты Сколково целый год занимаются с коучем по лидерству и для чего нужны менторы. Завершится утренняя часть бизнес-задачей, решение которой будет найдено вместе с командой. 13:15—14:00 От теории к практике.  Во второй половине программы участники с головой погрузятся в практические аспекты бизнеса. Проектно-ориентированные модули в США и Китае, консалтинговый проект с McKinsey, поездка на Камчатку. 14:00—15:00 Встреча с выпускниками и экскурсия по кампусу. Внимание! Количество мест ограничено.  Мероприятие бесплатное, требуется предварительная регистрация.

Выбор редакции
17 марта, 17:40

You're Now Twice As Likely To Achieve The 'American Dream' In Canada

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, On the positive front, America is really good at dropping bombs on foreigners. MarketWatch reports: The American dream — the idea that anyone can own their own home and do better than the previous generation with the right amount of hard work — has been fading for years, with rising house prices and stagnant wages. Now, people who want to achieve it may be better off seeking it in Canada, the U.K. or Denmark according to a new study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. At least the Fed is admitting its total failure. The study, authored by Raj Chetty, professor of economics at Stanford University, defined the concept as the ability for children born in the bottom fifth of income distribution to reach the top fifth. In the U.S. the likelihood of that is 7.5%, whereas in Canada children born in that group are twice as likely to rise to the top — at 13.5%. In the U.K. the likelihood of achieving that move from the bottom fifth to the top fifth is 9% and in Denmark it is 11.7%.   Indeed, the rich do appear to be leaving the middle class behind. Most U.S. middle-income households (81%) had flat or falling income between 2004 and 2014, according to a U.S. Congressional Budget Office data analyzed by the McKinsey Global Institute, a global management company.   “Most people growing up in advanced economies since World War II have been able to assume they will be better off than their parents,” the report said. “Yet this overwhelmingly positive income trend has ended.” This is primarily a function of our economy being dominated by rent-seeking parasites, who add no value to society but still somehow earn the most money. Until we shift to an economy that rewards creativity, production and innovation, the U.S. will never truly recover. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is not headed in that direction, as I outlined in my post earlier today: Donald Trump Works For Wall Street, Not Russia. Meanwhile, Bloomberg News just published an article celebrating the reduced standards of living many Americans are facing as a result of decades of flat-to-declining wages, combined with soaring home prices in a piece titled, Now You Can Live in a Remodeled Shipping Container: Startup Boxouse sells “portable, affordable, beautiful smart homes” made from shipping containers (the “deluxe” edition costs $49,000 and includes shipping). Chief Executive Officer Luke Iseman, a Wharton graduate who previously ran Y Combinator’s hardware program, concedes that “container houses aren’t perfect” but says they can help ease housing shortages. He shares one with co-founder Heather Stewart that’s set up in an Oakland warehouse. They’re partly financing the business by renting out two others on Airbnb. Thanks for playin’ America.

17 марта, 16:00

Will the Gig Economy Make the Office Obsolete?

The gig economy, where independent consultants, contractors, and freelancers create portfolios of work in lieu of one full-time job, is transforming the way we work by disconnecting work from an office. In the traditional jobs economy, employers often require employee attendance in the office five days a week, eight hours a day. Gig economy employers, in contrast, focus entirely on performance, not attendance in the office. It doesn’t matter if the idea for how to solve a problem or the insight to craft a new strategy is generated in the middle of the night, or while showering, or in yoga class. The gig economy employer values the quality of worker results, not the process by which they are created. The most impactful lesson that traditional companies can learn from the gig economy is to judge all workers, including employees, on their results, not on when and where they do their work. Not one study suggests that working in an office eight hours a day, five days a week maximizes employee productivity, satisfaction, or performance. In fact, any data that exists on work in an office reveals that most employees aren’t engaged, waste a lot of time in the office not working, and that employee underperformance persists despite the omnipresence of management. Even worse, the direct costs of maintaining the traditional office-based workplace are high. CBRE estimates that the typical company in the U.S. spends upward of $12,000 per employee per year for office space. It’s hard to find a return-on-investment case for office space, and much harder still to find any company that makes a compelling one. Focusing on employee time and location made sense when most jobs were time and place dependent. Factory workers, manual laborers, and workers in retail stores, restaurants, or hospitals have to be at their place of work at specific times to be productive. Knowledge workers do not. Sitting in an office cube or in a conference room attending endless, poorly-run meetings is unlikely to be how your company’s strategic or product issues are best solved. Nor is it likely to be the most effective way to create your marketing message, manage your back office, or maintain secure information systems. Our greatest insights and most productive work are often generated outside the constraints of the corporate workweek and the cube. Study after study after study demonstrate that independent, remote workers are more productive, satisfied, and engaged than their office-bound colleagues. Recent surveys of 8,000 workers by McKinsey’s Global Institute and nearly 900 independent workers by Future Workplace and Field Nation find that those workers, freed from the constraints of office life, report higher levels of satisfaction and greater productivity. These results aren’t surprising since remote work eliminates the wasted time of commuting, the stress of constant exposure to office politics, and the death of the workday by a thousand paper cuts of interruptions and meetings. Yet somehow, despite evidence of the many benefits of independent flexible work, our office-based, five-days-a-week, time-in-the-cube approach to work still persists at many companies. Why is that? Managers and human resource executives at traditional office-based firms respond to this question with narratives and anecdotes about trust, collaboration, and team-building, but offer nothing in the way of evidence – even from their own companies – to support their stories. The evidence that does exist suggests that trust and effective teams are built primarily through interpersonal behavior and communication, not constant proximity from working in the same office space. At least one reason to maintain an office and require employees to work in it is that most managers enjoy working at a company in which employees are managed by time and place. After all, it’s pretty easy to see who is at their desk between 9 and 5. It’s much harder to develop, measure, and evaluate the specific value and results that each employee produces. Managers will have to work a lot harder under a system that focuses on tracking performance, instead of time in an office chair. There is also a middle ground emerging between office-based and remote work. New studies show that workers who seek the structure of an office-based environment and the camaraderie of colleagues are much happier in co-working spaces than either a traditional office or working at home. Co-working options offer workers the best of both worlds – the control, autonomy, and scheduling flexibility of remote work combined with optional access to the structure and community of an office, if and when the worker wants it. For companies, co-working spaces turn commercial real estate into a variable expense item available at a lower cost. The rewards are great for companies that prioritize performance over attendance in the office: more productive, efficient, and satisfied workers, management focused on results and deliverables instead of face time, a healthier corporate culture based more explicitly on merit, and lower, more variable real estate and facility costs. Labor is the most expensive and valuable resource at most firms. Managing this resource by time and place is a crude, empirically unproven, inefficient, and costly approach. The biggest lessons that companies can learn from the gig economy are to separate work from the office, and to measure employees based on what they produce, deliver and solve, not the hours they spend in the office. Put simply, companies need to stop measuring what doesn’t matter, and start measuring what does.

Выбор редакции
17 марта, 14:49

McKinsey: "Аэрофлот" вошел в число лидеров по рентабельности инвестиционного капитала

"Аэрофлот" вошел в число авиакомпаний, которым удалось за десятилетний период покрыть стоимость инвестированных капиталов. Об этом сообщается в пресс-релизе авиаперевозчика со ссылкой на исследование международной консалтинговой ...

17 марта, 14:42

Аэрофлот вошел в число мировых лидеров по эффективности капиталовложений

Компания стала первой в мире среди глобальных авиаперевозчиков

17 марта, 14:16

"Аэрофлот" стал первым среди глобальных перевозчиков

"Аэрофлот" вошёл в число авиакомпаний мира, которым удалось за десятилетний период покрыть стоимость инвестированных капиталов. При этом он стал первым среди глобальных перевозчиков без учёта региональных и низкобюджетных по рентабельности инвестированного капитала (ROIC). Как показывает исследование международной консалтинговой компании McKinsey & Company, за десятилетие с 2005 по 2015 год среднее значение этого важного экономического показателя у "Аэрофлота" составило 11,9% — выше, чем у ряда крупных мировых игроков. По оценке экспертов, в число факторов, которые обеспечивают "Аэрофлоту" высокую отдачу от капиталовложений, входят предложение уникального продукта, более эффективные затраты, чем у конкурентов, сильный бренд и эффективная организационная структура. Предлагаемые "Аэрофлотом" услуги отмечены рядом престижных наград, а также высокими рейтингами, в составлении которых принимают участие как профессиональные эксперты, так и пассажиры. К числу конкурентных преимуществ компании относятся удобные стыковки на транзитных путях между Европой и Азией. Так, Москва, где базируется "Аэрофлот" с его обширной маршрутной сетью, признана хабом номер один в воздушном сообщении между Европой и Китаем. В текущем году авиакомпания была признана самым сильным брендом среди авиакомпаний мира в рейтинге Brand Finance. Кроме того, она занимает одно из ведущих мест в мире среди авиаперевозчиков по степени цифровизации, которая обеспечивает высокую степень эффективности операционной деятельности и бизнес-процессов.

17 марта, 13:16

Как руководить молодым поколением сотрудников — ключевые главы из книги «Не всем достанется приз. Как управлять поколением Y»

В издательстве «Манн, Иванов и Фербер» вышла книга «Не всем достанется приз. Как управлять поколением Y». Автор книги бизнес-консультант и основатель компании RainmakerThinking Брюс Тулган пишет о том, как менеджерам и руководителям компаний адаптировать методы управления под новое поколение сотрудников, которых писатель считает «самыми прихотливыми работниками в мировой истории». Редакция vc.ru публикует две главы из книги, где речь идёт об этапах обучения и способах удержания сотрудников поколения Y.

17 марта, 11:08

"Аэрофлот" стоит больше, чем Air France-KLM и Qantas

О секретах успеха авиакомпании, развитии лоукостера "Победа", рынке авиаперевозок, ценообразовании билетов, формировании авиапарка и кадровых резервах рассказал в программе "Мнение" Виталий Савельев, генеральный директор "Аэрофлот".

17 марта, 11:08

Аэрофлот стоит больше, чем Air France-KLM и Qantas

О секретах успеха авиакомпании, развитии лоукостера "Победа", рынке авиаперевозок, ценообразовании билетов, формировании авиапарка и кадровых резервах рассказал в программе "Мнение" Виталий Савельев, генеральный директор "Аэрофлот".

16 марта, 18:59

Эффективное небо. Авиаперевозчики делятся опытом успешной работы

​Компания «Аэрофлот» показала высокий результат работы. По итогам прошедшего года рост прибыли составил 19,4 %. Положительные тенденции отмечаются у авиаперевозчика и в других отраслях деятельности.

20 ноября 2015, 16:50

Книга о рисках роботизации получила приз FT/McKinsey

Бестселлер Мартина Форда "Восхождение роботов: технологии и угроза будущего без работы" назван лучшей книгой для бизнеса 2015 г. по версии издания Financial Times и консалтинговой компании McKinsey & Company.

18 февраля 2014, 14:14

Успехи Техаса и США: нефть и газ животворящие :)

Richard W. Fisher, President and CEOFederal Reserve Bank of DallasDallas, Texas February 11, 2014             - - - - - - - 05 Февраль 2014 О ценах на газ в США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/997777.html   23 Октябрь 2013 U.S. Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2011. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/956077.html   28 Август 2013 McKinsey: Five opportunities for US growth and renewal (Energy) http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931584.html  26 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931067.html   24 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа http://iv-g.livejournal.com/929565.html   17 Январь 2013 IEA: World Energy Outlook 2012. Presentation to the press http://iv-g.livejournal.com/818512.html  26 Декабрь 2012 forbes: Влияние нетрадиционных газа и нефти на экономику США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/806390.html   25 Июль 2012 Занятость в США и добыча углеводородов http://iv-g.livejournal.com/715320.html     28 Март 2012 Citigroup report. Energy 2020: North America as the new Middle East http://iv-g.livejournal.com/633928.html