It has been an exciting start to the investing year. Between the Dow Jones flirting with 20,000 points, a major milestone, and financials finally getting back to levels we haven't see for years, investors are sighing with relief. Last year, we saw a major uptick in savvy investors seeking higher returns in other markets due to a choppy fiscal environment and political insecurity. However, it seems like markets are collectively turning the page to a new chapter of investing in 2017. While HNWIs may have been pushed to access alpha elsewhere in 2016 due to market uncertainty, these individuals will likely stick to those alternative investments because they've experienced some of the highest gains they've experienced in years. Portfolio allocations to alternative investments have been on the rise for several years now - McKinsey noted the trend back in 2012 - and they're expected to continue growing rapidly. PwC projects investor allocation to alternatives will grow nearly 10% a year for the next five years, reaching $13 trillion in volume by 2020. The growth in alternative investment mutual funds over the past couple of years proves that even retail investors are catching on. By mid 2014, the category boasted $300 billion in assets, and had seen $35.7 billion in growth in the first half of the year, according to InvestmentNews. Here are our top 3 reasons: 1. IPOs are taking longer The number of billion-dollar companies that are still private hit a record, according to a report by Bain and Company. Going public is an expensive and time-consuming process for a new business, one that requires a company to jump through many regulatory hoops. Yes, there have been some big, splashy tech IPOs in 2014, but many of these companies are what Aileen Lee of Cowboy Ventures calls "unicorns" - firms founded after 2003 that are now worth at least $1 billion. To capture outsize returns, you have to invest in these companies while they're still private. 2. Investors need more diversification Years of increasing volatility in public equities and shrinking yield on bonds have caused investors to look more seriously at alternative asset classes. Affluent investors need diversification - and they expect their advisors to guide them beyond just a mix of stocks and bonds. Simple asset class and international diversification just doesn't cut it anymore. These days, when Greece sneezes, markets around the world catch a cold. Wealthy investors looking for real protection from market swings need alternatives. 3. Investors are looking for non-correlation Demographic changes also play a role here. As investors age, they need more protection from downturns. Today's retirees or near-retirees have the global financial crisis of 2008 fresh in their minds. Many retreated to bonds and now face low yields and real risks to principal if interest rates increase. They know they need some assets in their portfolios that are truly uncorrelated with interest rates and the stock market, so they don't lose their nest eggs just when they're ready to crack them open. Alternative investments - particularly liquid alternatives - may be just the ticket for this group. To learn more about alternative investments, sign up for our newsletter. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Like nearly all of us living in the United States, I come from a family of immigrants. My great-grandparents on my father’s side emigrated from Italy, and my great-grandparents on my mother’s side emigrated from Ireland. Everyone settled in Pittsburgh, where I spent a wonderful, middle-class childhood listening to my relatives debate traffic going “dahntahn” and telling me to go “warsh” up. As a white girl born into an educated family, I grew up privileged. I didn’t know it at the time, but I do now. I graduated from college, signed on to AmeriCorps, moved to Orange County, California, and began volunteering as a residential counselor in a group home that served at-risk yet academically capable girls. The experience was life-changing, and after a stint in the nonprofit sector, I now find myself leading a corporate foundation. In the 16 years I’ve been in Orange County, I’ve witnessed first-hand the growing inequality between rich and poor, not just in my own neighborhood and up and down the freeways, but around the world as well. And while magnificent strides have been made to cure social ills, too many problems still exist, and we are living in an unprecedented time of global change and volatility. The private sector is primed to serve as the catalyst and leader for advancing social change. I offer three examples for what business can do to solve the complex issue of inequality and promote sustainable development. Example 1: Mobilize corporate volunteers. At my company, we have a vibrant employee volunteer program. We send colleagues to soup kitchens, to schools, to developing countries to share their expertise and skills, and so much more. Volunteering builds empathy, resilience and agility. Corporate volunteers tap into meaning, purpose and connectedness. Volunteers can encounter leadership growth and partake in experiential learning opportunities. Facilitated correctly, volunteering provides a transformative experience that should move the volunteer – that should hook the volunteer into further action-for-good. Company by-products are increased retention, enhanced skill development, a more networked corporate culture, and inspiration in droves. Example 2: Address the skills gap. Let’s face it: the skills gap isn’t shrinking. According to this recent Wall Street Journal article, the number of available manufacturing jobs has been rising in the U.S. since 2009. In the Global Opportunity Network’s 2016 report, it was noted that “Youth all over the world are joining the ranks of the unemployed. Almost a quarter of the planet’s youth are neither working nor studying. Jobless growth is now a global reality for the next generation.” If our education systems can’t properly prepare us for the world of work, then business must step in with appropriate training and development programs. Here is where the ‘haves’ can most certainly extend a hand to the ‘have-nots.’ Here is where we must run with innovation and creativity to ensure our global economic progress is not forever crippled. For a sampling of innovation, one need look no further than the national nonprofit Per Scholas. Founded more than 20 years ago, Per Scholas trains unemployed and low-income workers for jobs in technology. The nonprofit creates opportunity, works to close the skills gap, and builds a more diverse IT workforce. There are fantastic organizations like Per Scholas out there. With the private sector’s help, we can find them, foster partnerships, and help them scale so that together, we can put people back to work in careers, not just jobs. Example 3: Embrace diversity. Thanks to McKinsey and countless other studies, we know that companies with more diverse workforces perform better. A diverse organization allows for an inclusive work environment, which engenders a greater number of authentic conversations and relationships. Talking about diversity both inside and outside the office can help clarify thinking and give voice to those whose stories need to be heard. Businesses can help by encouraging discussions about diversity, inclusion, and equity. Business can offer a blueprint for embracing our differences. Action Now. It’s 2017 and business has a responsibility to lead us toward empathy, social impact, and moral imagination and innovation. Yet we can’t just talk about it – we must do. So if your company doesn’t have an employee volunteer program, start one. If your company isn’t addressing the skills gap, figure out how it can. And if your company isn’t charging full speed ahead on diversity, then perhaps you should kick start that conversation. After immigrants reached Ellis Island, they strengthened this country as they built their new homes. Let us be grateful for our multitude of differences the world over, and let encourage business to harness its unique strengths for good. This post is a part of a new series around responsive and responsible leadership in alignment with the World Economic Forum in Davos. If you’d like to join the conversation, please e-mail [email protected] -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
LONDON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - Global consulting firm McKinsey & Co signed a long-term lease for a new office in London, signalling its commitment to Britain at a time when the country's coming withdrawal from the EU means some groups are relocating staff away from the UK.
Рабочие места изучают со стороны спроса // Мнение выпускников университетов РФ о работодателях сведено в новый рейтинг
Компания Future Today при поддержке McKinsey в январе 2017 года представит рейтинг работодателей на рынке России -- аналитический продукт, измеряющий спрос у выпускников 11 ведущих университетов РФ на рабочие места в крупнейших российских компаниях. Проект интересен тем, что создан в кооперации с 40 HR-службами работодателей, которые считают необходимым наличие для России прозрачного по методике, оптимизированного для российских работодателей и детализованного по факультетам университетов инструмента изучения ситуации на топ-сегменте кадрового рынка.
Дальнейшее развитие технологии распределенного реестра поможет сократить расходы глобальной индустрии финансовых услуг на 110 млрд долларов. Такие результаты продемонстрировал анализ компании McKinsey.
For those unfamiliar with what goes on at the annual January boondoggle at the World Economic Forum in Davos, here is the simple breakdown. Officially, heads of state, captains of industry, prominent academics, philanthropists and a retinue of journalists, celebrities and hangers-on will descend Tuesday on the picturesque alpine village of Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum; Unofficially, it's the world's biggest echo chamber, where wealthy, influential and/or powerful people, yet vastly out of touch with the rest of the world, sit down with other wealthy, influential and/or powerful people who are just as out of touch, to validate to each other that nobody really knows anything (also known as the "ratings agency effect"), but because the press is there and fails to point out that these emperors of industry, commerce, entertainment and politics are naked in hopes of maintaining their annual invitation and direct access, everyone goes home happy. And just as clueless. Hence Trump. Case in point, as Reuters fondly recalls, last year, the consensus here was that Trump had no chance of being elected (actually, last January the world's elites were far more worried about plunging markets as we pointed out in "How Billionaires Are Investing In 2016: "The Only Winning Move Is Not To Play The Game"). Trump was elected. His victory, less than half a year after Britain voted to leave the European Union, "was a slap at the principles that elites in Davos have long held dear, from globalization and free trade to multilateralism." We'll get to Trump in a second, but first some more on the background of this festival which revels in everything the populist backlash of 2016 found excerable, courtesy of the NYT. Who Attends the Conference? More than 2,500 people will attend this year’s conference from 90 different countries, paying up to $50,000 per person to attend (that of course excludes the ultra-celebrities who get in for free). In fact, so many people are attending, some of the local staff may sleep in shipping containers. Most of the participants are corporate executives, but more than two dozen heads of state and government are expected to attend. Theresa May, the prime minister of Britain, and Xi Jinping, president of China, are attending the conference for the first time this year. Xi is the first Chinese president to attend the event, and will also be the star attraction. His presence is being seen as a sign of Beijing's growing weight in the world at a time when Trump is promising a more insular, "America first" approach and Europe is pre-occupied with its own troubles, from Brexit to terrorism. On the other hand, Trump has decided not to officially send a member of his team as it would "betray his populist-fueled movement." Likewise German chancellor Merkel will be absent, worried about her own image ahead of the 2017 German elections. Aside from politicians, Shakira and the actor Forest Whitaker are to receive awards this year. Expected attendees include Sheryl Sandberg, COO at Facebook; Matt Damon; Formula One driver Nico Rosberg; and Alibaba's Jack Ma. While only 17% of last year’s participants were women, according to the forum, this year the number is not expected to change. How Are These People Kept Safe? All of those dignitaries need security. During the conference, Davos transforms into a fortress. Roadblocks restrict traffic on the city’s main streets and checkpoints spring up outside each venue. At the Congress Center, where the main panels take place, and at each hotel that hosts parties and talks, attendees pass metal detectors, armed guards and beneath the watchful eyes of sharpshooters. In the past, the conference was targeted by protesters associated with the anticapitalist Occupy movement. In 2013, members of the Ukrainian activist group Femen were arrested after a topless demonstration. The Swiss government estimated it will spend 8 million Swiss francs, about $8 million, on security, but said that number could increase if there were a credible threat to the conference. “Switzerland is still not regarded as a priority target for jihadist terrorists,” the Federal Council said on its website. “On the other hand, even on Swiss soil, the interests of states participating in the military coalition against the so-called Islamic State face an increased threat.” Is It as Elitist as It Sounds? Yes. The meeting runs on a tiered system of colored badges denoting just how important one is, or is not. White badges are for attendees able to attend any official event and make full use of the forum’s facilities. Orange badges are reserved for the 500 journalists who cover the forum, but are not allowed at some parties. Other badges, like purple ones, denote technical or support staff and limit their holders to a few areas. Local hotels like the Belvedere and the InterContinental often sell their own badges to the bankers and consultants who descend upon Davos to strike deals and chat up clients. These souls camp out at the hotels, renting rooms for business meetings by day and soiree hopping at night. What About the Parties? Beyond the boring, ineffective, and circle-jerking lectures and panel discussions, a much more important agenda unfolds after sunset. One notable event, according to the NYT, is a simulation of a refugee’s experience, where Davos attendees crawl on their hands and knees and pretend to flee from advancing armies. It is one of the most popular events every year. The theme of this year’s conference is “Responsive and Responsible Leadership.” But attendees like to play as hard as they work. There are several official cocktail receptions, but the action really lies in a galaxy of events hosted by corporations. Some are small, intimate dinners that feature the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Bono. Others are dazzling affairs worthy of a modern day Gatsby: JPMorgan Chase, for example, has previously taken over the Kirchner Museum Davos for drinks with its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister. Google’s annual party at the InterContinental Hotel has become the hottest ticket in town. The investor Anthony Scaramucci, now an adviser to Donald J. Trump, for years has hosted a reception at the famed Hotel Europe featuring a sometimes eye-popping list of high-end Champagne and Bordeaux red wine. A more recent up-and-comer is hosted by Salesforce.com, a business software maker, whose chief, Marc Benioff, is one of the forum’s most ardent boosters. Last year’s Salesforce party included Mr. Benioff flying in scores of fresh flower leis and a band from Hawaii, as Eric Schmidt of Google and other tech notables danced in a corner. Several years ago, Sean Parker of Napster and Facebook fame, hosted an over-the-top gathering that featured stuffed animal heads shooting laser beams out of their eyes. And the Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska has thrown opulent gatherings at a nearby villa where the Champagne flowed freely For a nightcap, the Davos crowd traditionally retires to the Tonic Bar at Hotel Europe, sipping cocktails while the forum fixture Barry Colson leads the crowd in Billy Joel singalongs. * * * With the background of the event covered, we once again focus on the key topic at hand, namely quite ironic "social and wealth inequality" - which incidentally has been a core topic for the past several years, demonstrating just how clueless Davos really is, and of course Trump. Just so readers can get a sense of just how delightfully surreal this whole event is, one of the most prominent panels is called "Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle-Class Crisis" Its description: "Poor employment prospects and low-income growth in many developed economies have laid the groundwork for the rise of populism. Did policy-makers ignore these trends or do too little to redress them? What can be done to restore growth in the middle class and confidence in the future?" Who are these experts on the woes of the middle class? Read em and weep: Ray Dalio - a billiionaire who encourages spying on his employees; Christine Lagarde - a convicted criminal and tax evader, head of an organization that takes from the poor and gives to the world's creditors; and Larry Summers, a firm believer, and doer, in wealth redistribution from the middle classes to the wealthy. * * * While in previous years the Davos party was not to be spoiled with any actual concerns about the real world violating the inner sanctum of the world's uber-poseurs, this year something has changed. Beneath the veneer of optimism over the economic outlook lurks acute anxiety about an increasingly toxic political climate and a deep sense of uncertainty surrounding the U.S. presidency of Donald Trump, who will be quite symoblically, even if purely accidentally, inaugurated on the final day of the forum. And with Trump's election come worries that the ivory towers inhabited by the 2,500 or so Davosites, are far less sturdy than previously believed. "Regardless of how you view Trump and his positions, his election has led to a deep, deep sense of uncertainty and that will cast a long shadow over Davos," said Jean-Marie Guehenno, CEO of International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution think-tank. Moises Naim of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was even more blunt, suggesting that the people in Davos are even more clueless than usual, which is saying quite a lot. "There is a consensus that something huge is going on, global and in many respects unprecedented. But we don't know what the causes are, nor how to deal with it." Brilliant. * * * Meanwhile, in an attempt to figure out the causes and "how to deal with it", the participants in the World Economic Forum, which runs from Jan. 17 to 20, will partake in such panels as the abovementioned "Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle Class Crisis", "Politics of Fear or Rebellion of the Forgotten?", "Tolerance at the Tipping Point?" and "The Post-EU Era". The central question in Davos, a four-day affair of panel discussions, lunches and cocktail parties that delve into subjects as diverse as terrorism, artificial intelligence and wellness, is whether leaders can agree on the root causes of public anger and begin to articulate a response... aside from the forum participants themselves of course. A WEF report on global risks released before Davos highlighted "diminishing public trust in institutions" and noted that rebuilding faith in the political process and leaders would be a "difficult task". Guy Standing, the author of several books on the new "precariat", a class of people who lack job security and reliable earnings, believes more people are coming around to the idea that free-market capitalism needs to be overhauled, including those that have benefited most from it. "The mainstream corporate types don't want Trump and far-right authoritarians," said Standing, who has been invited to Davos for the first time. "They want a sustainable global economy in which they can do business. More and more of them are sensible enough to realize that they have overreached." But Ian Bremmer, president of U.S.-based political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, is not so sure, and he recounted ro Reuters a recent trip to Goldman Sachs headquarters in New York where he saw bankers "rejoicing in the elevators" at the surge in stock markets and the prospect of tax cuts and deregulation under Trump. Both Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and his JP Morgan counterpart Jamie Dimon will be in Davos. It remains to be seen if there will be as much "elevator rejoicing" when the market finally crashes under Trump, an inevitable outcome which some speculate is precisely why Trump was allowed to become president: so that all the blame on the grand crash, once it, happens can be placed on him. Others are less worried about the impact of Trump, and more concerned that the pace of technological change and the integrated, complex nature of the global economy have made it more difficult for leaders to shape and control events, let alone reconfigure the global system. The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple explanations and solutions. The problem, says Ian Goldin, an expert on globalization and development at the University of Oxford, is that on many of the most important issues, from climate change to financial regulation, only multilateral cooperation can deliver results. And this is precisely what the populists reject. "The state of global politics is worse than it's been in a long time," said Goldin. "At a time when we need more coordination to tackle issues like climate change and other systemic risks, we are getting more and more insular." * * * Whatever the reason, sense of dread that things are moving, changing beyond the participants' control will be all too tangible. It is also why, as Bloomberg reported today, the World Economic Forum will convene a special meeting in Washington this year to discuss issues raised during the president-elect’s campaign "and the populist wave that swept him to victory" WEF founder Klaus Schwab told Bloomberg Television on Sunday. The gathering will explore U.S. investment and job-creation opportunities for companies that participate in the forum, he said. “It’s very natural that with the new administration we plan a major event in the U.S. to see what are the implications of the new president and how the business community could engage,” Schwab said in advance of the forum’s 47th annual meeting in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. “We have to be responsive to the call.” “People have become very emotionalized, this silent fear of what the new world will bring,” Schwab said in the town’s hulking conference center. “We have populists here and we want to listen. We have to respond to these individuals’ fears and to offer solutions. It’s not just enough to listen; we have to provide answers and that’s what were here for in Davos." No, that's what you were there for in Davos in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, and you did nothing. Now it's too late as the pendulum has already swung. That, however, is not obvious to the forum organizers who will enjoy another blockbuster year. Business is booming for the WEF and Schwab, 78, said he has no plans to abandon or alter its annual retreat. Revenue is up 45% in the past five years and staff have increased by about a third - with employees earning an average of 135,000 Swiss francs, ($133,875) which rises to 213,000 Swiss francs with the addition of costs such as pensions and healthcare. “Our salary structure is completely in line with others such as the Bretton Woods organization, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund,” Schwab said. “We also have to be competitive with organizations like Goldman Sachs and McKinsey. We are competing for the same talent.” How does Schwab reconcile the glaring hypocricy of the world's wealthiest debating social injustice and wealth inequality? Simple: Despite the glitzy parties that have become the hallmark of the annual gathering, Schwab said his aim is not to celebrate the “outrageous excesses of life,” but rather to create a “global village,” where participants can mull weighty issues facing the world without the distractions of a large city. And he insists that as the power and beliefs of business and political leaders face unprecedented challenges, the meeting is needed more than ever. Schwab says the WEF’s annual meeting, where companies host lavish parties awash in champagne and rare vintage wines, attendees pay $50,000 and thousands of soldiers and police stand guard, remains an appropriate forum to discuss political issues like the rise of populism and seek solutions to society’s biggest problems. Unfortunately, that's all it is, as no concrete, revolutionary decisions can ever take place within the confines of this giant echo chamber. Schwab concludes by saying that "the right solution will require a lot of effort and many steps in the right direction. I am optimistic that in a new multi-polar world we still have the notion of a joined and shared destiny" but adds that his "biggest fear is that we will believe there are very simple answers to very difficult questions.” Actually, herr Klaus Schwab, there are other far more tangible things you and your peers should be afraid of, but somehow we doubt that those will become apparent while eating $40 hot dogs.
К 2055 году в результате глобальной автоматизации производства будет упразднено до половины рабочих мест -- McKinsey
К 2055 году порядка 49 проц всех рабочих мест на планете будет упразднено за счет автоматизации производства, наиболее заметно этот процесс будет протекать в Китае и Индии. Об этом идет речь в докладе McKinsey Global Institute, представленном в четверг в Сянгане.
К 2055 году порядка 49 проц всех рабочих мест на планете будет упразднено за счет автоматизации производства, наиболее заметно этот процесс будет протекать в Китае и Индии. Об этом идет речь в докладе McKinsey Global Institute, представленном в четверг в Сянгане.
What was it like to leave Google to start ThirdLove? originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. Answer by Heidi Zak, Co-Founder of ThirdLove, on Quora. What was it like to leave Google to start ThirdLove? The scariest part: The scariest thing about leaving Google was the fact that I gave up a good gig, and a salary. I was reporting to the VP of Americas marketing, working on some really interesting projects and I loved my co-workers (one of my closest friends still today is someone I met in my first week of Google). Leaving a well-paying job to bootstrap a company, with no income coming in, is scary. It took me months of discussion and contemplation before actually taking the plunge to start ThirdLove. The most exciting part: When you're about to start a company, the world is rosy. We had a clear idea of what we were going to do and how fun starting a company would be. Then, reality hit... very quickly. Working out of a small apartment with my husband and no employees, no real product and just an idea was going to be much harder than we thought. The excitement dissipates a bit when you realize what you really have gotten into. No more Google, no more organic lunches, chair massages to break up the day, cheery co-workers to grab a drink with after work. Just you, your co-founder and a big idea. The most inspirational part: One thing that Google taught me that I will always be thankful for is to embrace change. Prior to Google I had worked for bigger, more traditional companies where day to day things just kind of moved along (Bank of America, McKinsey, Aeropostale). Within just a few months at Google, there was a re-org and my role completely changed. That change gave me the opportunity to work with new people across the company and take on more responsibility. I learned at Google to look forward to change, and to recognize that it creates opportunity. And that, at the core, allowed me to have the confidence to make the jump to starting a company. This question originally appeared on Quora. - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions: Entrepreneurship: What is it like to live with, be married to, and then co-found with your partner? Parenting: What are some of the challenges entrepreneurial parents face? Clothing and Apparel: Considering the lack of knowledge among women regarding the right bra size, what are some innovative ways the lingerie industry can tackle this issue? -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Preface: Washington's Blog reached out to Dr. Haering after reading several excellent articles on India's cash ban. Dr. Haering then combined the information into a single article for us. We lightly edited the article for spelling and grammar. By Norbert Haering, a German financial journalist, blogger and PhD economist, who received the 2007 getAbstract Best Business Book award and the 2014 prize of the German Keynes Society for economic journalism. His best-selling book (in German) “The abolition of cash and the consequences” was published in 2016. Originally published on norberthaering.de (http://norberthaering.de/en/home/27-german/news/745-washington-s-role-in-india). Republished with permission of the author. In early November, without warning, the Indian government declared the two largest denomination bills invalid, abolishing over 80 percent of circulating cash by value. Amidst all the commotion and outrage this caused, nobody seems to have taken note of the decisive role that Washington played in this. That is surprising, as Washington’s role has been disguised only very superficially. U.S. President Barack Obama has declared the strategic partnership with India a priority of his foreign policy. China needs to be reined in. In the context of this partnership, the US government’s development agency USAID has negotiated cooperation agreements with the Indian ministry of finance. One of these has the declared goal to push back the use of cash in favor of digital payments in India and globally. On November 8, Indian prime minster Narendra Modi announced that the two largest denominations of banknotes could not be used for payments any more with almost immediate effect. Owners could only recoup their value by putting them into a bank account before the short grace period expired at year end, which many people and businesses did not manage to do, due to long lines in front of banks. The amount of cash that banks were allowed to pay out to individual customers was severely restricted. Almost half of Indians have no bank account and many do not even have a bank nearby. The economy is largely cash based. Thus, a severe shortage of cash ensued. Those who suffered the most were the poorest and most vulnerable. They had additional difficulty earning their meager living in the informal sector or paying for essential goods and services like food, medicine or hospitals. Chaos and fraud reigned well into December. Four weeks earlier Not even four weeks before this assault on Indians, USAID had announced the establishment of “Catalyst: Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership”, with the goal of effecting a quantum leap in cashless payment in India. The press statement of October 14 says that Catalyst “marks the next phase of partnership between USAID and Ministry of Finance to facilitate universal financial inclusion”. The statement does not show up in the list of press statements on the website of USAID (anymore?). Not even filtering statements with the word “India” would bring it up. To find it, you seem to have to know it exists, or stumble upon it in a web search. Indeed, this and other statements, which seemed rather boring before, have become a lot more interesting and revealing after November 8. Reading the statements with hindsight it becomes obvious, that Catalyst and the partnership of USAID and the Indian Ministry of Finance, from which Catalyst originated, are little more than fronts which were used to be able to prepare the assault on all Indians using cash without arousing undue suspicion. Even the name Catalyst sounds a lot more ominous, once you know what happened on November 9. Catalyst’s Director of Project Incubation is Alok Gupta, who used to be Chief Operating Officer of the World Resources Institute in Washington, which has USAID as one of its main sponsors. He was also an original member of the team that developed Aadhaar, the Big-Brother-like biometric identification system. According to a report of the Indian Economic Times, USAID has committed to finance Catalyst for three years. Amounts are kept secret. Badal Malick was Vice President of India’s most important online marketplace Snapdeal, before he was appointed as CEO of Catalyst. He commented: “Catalyst’s mission is to solve multiple coordination problems that have blocked the penetration of digital payments among merchants and low-income consumers. We look forward to creating a sustainable and replicable model…. While there has been … a concerted push for digital payments by the government, there is still a last mile gap when it comes to merchant acceptance and coordination issues. We want to bring a holistic ecosystem approach to these problems.” Also in September, McKinsey Global Institute issued a report titled “How digital finance could boost growth in emerging economies”. The authors acknowledged “collaboration with the Financial Services for the Poor team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”. They thanked more than ten Gates Foundation (BTCA) people for contribution to the report, including Gates Foundation’s India head Nachiket Mor, whom we will meet again later. The Gates Foundation and USAID are key members of a Better Than Cash Alliance, which we will also look at more closely. In mid-December, seemingly unfazed by ample evidence that taking away cash in India has been the exact opposite of helping the poor and promoting “financial inclusion”, McKinsey-partner Susan Lund and study contributor Laura Tyson published “The promise of digital finance”, making fantastic claims about the advantages of pushing back cash-use in favor of digital, including ten percent higher GDP for countries like India. Ten months earlier The multiple coordination problem and the cash-ecosystem-issue that Malick mentions had been analysed in a report that USAID commissioned in 2015 and presented in January 2016, in the context of the anti-cash partnership with the Indian Ministry of Finance. The press release on this presentation is also not in USAID’s list of press statements (anymore?). The title of the study was “Beyond Cash”. “Merchants, like consumers, are trapped in cash ecosystems, which inhibits their interest” in digital payment it said in the report. Since few traders accept digital payments, few consumers have an interest in it, and since few consumers use digital payments, few traders have an interest in it. Given that banks and payment providers charge fees for equipment to use or even just try out digital payment, a strong external impulse is needed to achieve a level of card penetration that would create mutual interest of both sides in digital payment options. It turned out in November that the declared “holistic ecosystem approach” to create this impulse consisted in destroying the cash-ecosystem for a limited time and to slowly dry it up later, by limiting the availability of cash from banks for individual customers. Since the assault had to be a surprise to achieve its full catalyst-results, the published Beyond-Cash-Study and the protagonists of Catalyst could not openly describe their plans. They used a clever trick to disguise them and still be able to openly do the necessary preparations, even including expert hearings. They consistently talked of a regional field experiment that they were ostensibly planning. “The goal is to take one city and increase the digital payments 10x in six to 12 months,” said Malick less than four weeks before most cash was abolished in the whole of India. To not be limited in their preparation on one city alone, the Beyond Cash report and Catalyst kept talking about a range of regions they were examining, ostensibly in order to later decide which was the best city or region for the field experiment. Only in November did it became clear that the whole of India should be the guinea-pig-region for a global drive to end the reliance on cash. Reading a statement of Ambassador Jonathan Addleton, USAID Mission Director to India, with hindsight, it becomes clear that he stealthily announced that, when he said four weeks earlier: “India is at the forefront of global efforts to digitize economies and create new economic opportunities that extend to hard-to-reach populations. Catalyst will support these efforts by focusing on the challenge of making everyday purchases cashless.” Catalyst is housed at IFMR, an Indian research institute, of which Gates Foundation India’s CEO Nachiket Mor is a board member, has many US-Institutions as funders, including many members of a group called Better Thank Cash Alliance, including USAID, Gates Foundation, Ford foundation, Citi. IFMR is a member of the “Alliance for financial inclusion”, which is financed by the Gates Foundation (BTCA). Veterans of the war on cash in action Who are the institutions behind this decisive attack on cash? Upon the presentation of the Beyond-Cash-report, USAID declared: “Over 35 key Indian, American and international organizations have partnered with the Ministry of Finance and USAID on this initiative.” On the ominously named website http://cashlesscatalyst.org/ one can see that they are mostly IT- and payment service providers who want to make money from digital payments or from the associated data generation on users. Many are veterans of what a high-ranking official of Deutsche Bundesbank called the “war of interested financial institutions on cash” (in German). They include the Better Than Cash Alliance, the Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Omidyar Network (eBay), the Dell Foundation Mastercard, Visa, Metlife Foundation. The Better Than Cash Alliance The Better Than Cash Alliance, which includes USAID as a member, is mentioned first for a reason. It was founded in 2012 to push back cash on a global scale. The secretariat is housed at the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDP) in New York, which might have its reason in the fact that this rather poor small UN organization was glad to have the Gates Foundation in one of the two preceding years and the MasterCard Foundation in the other as its most generous donors. The members of the Alliance are large US-Institutions which would benefit most from pushing back cash, i.e. credit card companies Mastercard and Visa, and also some U.S. institutions whose names come up a lot in books on the history of the United States intelligence services, namely Ford Foundation and USAID. A prominent member is also the Gates Foundation. Omidyar Network of eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and Citi are important contributors. Almost all of these are individually also partners in the current USAID-India-Initiative to end the reliance on cash in India and beyond. The initiative and the Catalyst program seem little more than an extended Better Than Cash Alliance, augmented by Indian and Asian organizations with a strong business interest in a much decreased use of cash. Reserve Bank of India’s IMF-Chicago Boy The partnership to prepare the temporary banning of most cash in India coincides roughly with the tenure of Raghuram Rajan at the helm of Reserve Bank of India from September 2013 to September 2016. Rajan (53) had been, and is now again, economics professor at the University of Chicago. From 2003 to 2006 he had been Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington. (This is a cv item he shares with another important warrior against cash, Ken Rogoff.) He is a member of the Group of Thirty, a rather shady organization, where high ranking representatives of the world major commercial financial institutions share their thoughts and plans with the presidents of the most important central banks, behind closed doors and with no minutes taken. It becomes increasingly clear that the Group of Thirty is one of the major coordination centers of the worldwide war on cash. Its membership includes other key warriors like Rogoff, Larry Summers and others. Raghuram Rajan has ample reason to expect to climb further to the highest rungs in international finance and thus had good reason to play Washington’s game well. He already was a President of the American Finance Association and inaugural recipient of its Fisher-Black Prize in financial research. He won the handsomely endowed prizes of Infosys for economic research and of Deutsche Bank for financial economics as well as the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Prize for best economics book. He was declared Indian of the year by NASSCOM and Central Banker of the year by Euromoney and by The Banker. He is considered a possible successor of Christine Lagard at the helm of the IMF, but can certainly also expect to be considered for other top jobs in international finance. A flying-start in 2013 In 2013, the year after BTCA was founded, Rajan, former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, took over the post of Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). One of his first decisions was to set up the “Committee on Comprehensive Financial Services for Small Businesses and Low Income Households”. He put Nachiket Mor in charge of it, a banker an board-member of the RBI. In March 2016 the Gates Foundation made Mor head of its India country office. A reward? Somewhat counterintuitively, the Mor Committee that was to foster financial inclusion of the poor and of rural areas, was heavily dominated by big finance and law firms, with a strong US bias and. Members included Vikram Pandit, former CEO Citigroup, a member of the Better Than Cash Alliance, and Bundu Ananth, President of IFMR Trust. A further member of the Mor Committee was a representative of the National Payments Corporation of India the umbrella organization of payment service providers, which aims to move India to a cashless society. Another member was credit Rating Agency CRISIL, majority-owned by the US Rating giant Standard & Poor’s. In May 2016, RBI announced plans to print a new series of banknotes and announced in August that it had approved a design for a new 2,000 rupee note. As a Central Bank Governor, Rajan was liked and well respected by the financial sector, but very much disliked by company people from the real (producing) sector, despite his penchant for deregulation and economic reform. The main reason was the restrictive monetary policy he introduced and staunchly defended. After he was viciously criticized from the ranks of the governing party, he declared in June that he would not seek a second term in September. Later he told the New York Times that he had wanted to stay on, but not for a whole term, and that premier Modi would not have that. A former commerce and law Minister, Mr. Swamy, said on the occasion of Rajan’s departure that it would make Indian industrialists happy: “I certainly wanted him out, and I made it clear to the prime minister, as clear as possible…. His audience was essentially Western, and his audience in India was transplanted westernized society. People used to come in delegations to my house to urge me to do something about it.” A disaster that had to happen If Rajan was involved in the preparation of this assault to declare most of Indians’ banknotes illegal – and there should be little doubt about that, given his personal and institutional links and the importance of Reserve Bank of India in the provision of cash – he had ample reason to stay in the background. After all, it cannot have surprised anyone closely involved in the matter, that this would result in chaos and extreme hardship, especially for the majority of poor and rural Indians, who were flagged as the supposed beneficiaries of the badly misnamed “financial inclusion” drive. USAID and partners had analyzed the situation extensively and found in the Beyond-Cash-report that 97% of transactions were done in cash and that only 55% of Indians had a bank account. They also found that even of these bank accounts, “only 29% have been used in the last three months“. All this was well known and made it a certainty that suddenly abolishing most cash would cause severe and even existential problems to many small traders and producers and to many people in remote regions without banks. When it did, it became obvious, how false the promise of financial inclusion by digitalization of payments and pushing back cash has always been. There simply is no other means of payment that can compete with cash in allowing everybody with such low hurdles to participate in the market economy. However, for Visa, Mastercard and the other payment service providers, who were not affected by these existential problems of the huddled masses, the assault on cash will most likely turn out a big success, “scaling up” digital payments in the “trial region”. After this chaos and with all the losses that they had to suffer, all business people who can afford it, are likely to make sure they can accept digital payments in the future. And consumers, who are restricted in the amount of cash they can get from banks now, will use opportunities to pay with cards, much to the benefit of Visa, Mastercard and the other members of the extended Better Than Cash Alliance. Who knew? In a report of news agency Reuters from December named “Who knew?”, unnamed Indian official sources want to make us believe that only the prime minister himself and a handful of people, knew of the plans. The Reuters report names only one of the supposedly five who knew, a high-ranking official of the finance ministry. Tellingly, there is not a single mention of any foreign involvement, despite a formal cooperation of the finance ministry with USAID, aimed at pushing back cash in favor of digital payments. This makes the Reuters piece another piece of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that a strong and not fully legitimate force behind the brutal intervention that happened in November is being covered up. The hypothesis that a main driver behind the demonetization were U.S. interests, does not at all imply that the Indian prime minister and other Indian constituents did not have their own interests associated with it. It is hardly possible to get the elite of a country to do something that goes against their own interests, but it is fairly easy to get them to do something that helps significant fractions of them, but hurts the majority of the people. A few possible such interests, taken from readers’ suggestions are recapitalising the public banks, which were staggering under the weight of bad loans to cronies, the interests of online payment platforms and online marketplaces as well as retail chains, which, curiously, as an Indian journalist tells me, were well supplied with cash in their in-store ATMs and benefited from the wiping out of informal competition. Why Washington is waging a global war on cash The business interests of the U.S. companies that dominate the global IT business and payment systems are an important reason for the zeal of the U.S. government in its push to reduce cash use worldwide, but it is not the only one and might not be the most important one. Another motive is surveillance power that goes with increased use of digital payment. U.S. intelligence organizations and IT companies together can survey all international payments done through banks and can monitor most of the general stream of digital data. Financial data tends to be the most important and valuable. Even more importantly, the status of the dollar as the world’s currency of reference and the dominance of U.S. companies in international finance provide the US government with tremendous power over all participants in the formal non-cash financial system. It can make everybody conform to American law rather than to their local or international rules. German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has recently run a chilling story describing how that works (German). Employees of a German factoring firm doing completely legal business with Iran were put on a US terror list, which meant that they were shut off most of the financial system and even some logistics companies would not transport their furniture any more. A major German bank was forced to fire several employees upon U.S. request, who had not done anything improper or unlawful. There are many more such examples. Every internationally active bank can be blackmailed by the U.S. government into following their orders, since revoking their license to do business in the U.S. or in dollar basically amounts to shutting them down. Just think about Deutsche Bank, which had to negotiate with the US Treasury for months whether they would have to pay a fine of 14 billion dollars and most likely go broke, or get away with seven billion and survive. If you have the power to bankrupt the largest banks even of large countries, you have power over their governments, too. This power through dominance over the financial system and the associated data is already there. The less cash there is in use, the more extensive and secure it is, as the use of cash is a major avenue for evading this power.
These are head-spinning times for those of us who think about the best ways to lead and the most effective ways to compete. What defines acceptable personal behavior (let alone behavior worth emulating) among public officials? Why would executives at so many iconic organizations — Volkswagen, Wells Fargo, FIFA — tolerate behavior so egregious that it threatens the very future of their organizations? How should innovators with a fierce sense of ambition handle the criticisms and objections that inevitably come their way and make sure that confidence does not turn into bombast? In a world hungry for great leadership, these are just a few of the questions that too many leaders seem incapable of answering. I don’t pretend to have easy answers myself. But I do know that the best leaders I’ve studied — executives and entrepreneurs who have created enduring economic value based on sound human values — recognize and embrace the “obligation to dissent.” Put simply, you can’t be an effective leader in business, politics, or society unless you encourage those around you to speak their minds, to bring attention to hypocrisy and misbehavior, and to be as direct and strong-willed in their evaluations of you as you are in your strategies and plans for them. I first encountered the term last year, in an intriguing interview with a CEO named Victor Ho, cofounder of a customer loyalty company that has raised more than $100 million in venture funding. Ho talked about his childhood, his college years, and the experiences that shaped his entrepreneurial instincts. He also talked about his stint at McKinsey & Company, the blue-chip consulting firm, and one subversive takeaway. “The strongest lesson I learned at McKinsey that I now share with every new hire is what they call the ‘obligation to dissent,’” he told the New York Times. “It means that the youngest, most junior person in any given meeting is the most capable to disagree with the most senior person in the room.” What a powerful image. What a contrast to what usually happens in the corridors of power. The obligation to dissent is in fact a hallmark of McKinsey culture, established and enshrined decades ago by Marvin Bower, the legendary head of the world’s most celebrated consulting firm. A biography of Bower describes the first encounter between the larger-than-life leader and Fred Gluck, a former managing director of the firm. Gluck bumped into Bower, who asked how things were going with his maiden assignment at the firm. Gluck answered honestly and told Bower he thought the partners were approaching the engagement all wrong. The next morning, Gluck found a note asking him to report to Bower’s office. He assumed he would be fired. Instead, he found Bower on the phone with the project leader, discussing Gluck’s critique and agreeing that the newcomer was right. They scrapped the approach, refused to charge the client for the work, and started over. “This obligation to dissent, this was Marvin’s principle,” one senior consultant told the biographer. “It came directly from him….And very few people have the guts to dissent.” Another McKinsey alum, Robin Richards, chair and CEO of the CareerArc Group, makes it clear how he wants his colleagues to behave. “Don’t have a meeting with your boss where you agree with him on everything he says,” Richards explained. “If you have an obligation to dissent, then we get the best minds and we get the best outcomes. People like living in that environment. They feel valuable. People become fearless.” Truth be told, very few people have the guts to dissent, very few people become fearless, because very few leaders emphasize and celebrate their obligation to do so. Edgar Schein, professor emeritus at MIT Sloan School of Management and an expert on leadership and culture, has spent decades studying the attributes that define great executives. One of the attributes he highlights time and again is humility — the sort that invites dissent. Sadly, that kind of humility is all too rare. Schein once asked a group of students what it means to be promoted to the rank of manager. “They said without hesitation, ‘It means I can now tell others what to do.’” That’s precisely the know-it-all style of leadership that has led to so much crisis and disappointment. “Deep down, many of us believe that if you are not winning, you are losing,” Schein warns. The “tacit assumption” among executives “is that life is fundamentally and always a competition.” But humility and ambition, he argues, need not be at odds. Instead, humility in the service of ambition is the most effective and sustainable mindset for leaders who aspire to do big things in a world filled with huge unknowns. So here’s to humility. Here’s to dissent. And here’s to a more fruitful style of leadership than we’ve seen of late.
DISTRACTED DRIVING: The Next Ad Frontier is the Windshield. The advent of connected cars is creating a new sales battleground, and using a vehicle’s windshield may be the next way to pitch more products and services to consumers. McKinsey & Co. estimates that mobile and data-driven services in autos will generate $1.5 trillion by 2030. […]
Аккумуляторы для электромобилей подешевели на 80 процентов за период с 2010 по 2016 год. Об этом сообщает немецкое издание Automobilwoche со ссылкой на исследование консалтинговой фирмы McKinsey.Отмечается, что стоимость батареи составляет значительную часть цены электромобиля. В настоящее время ее стоимость рассчитывается по формуле 230 долларов за киловатт-час. По сравнению с обычной машиной, оснащенной двигателем внутреннего сгорания, цена электрической версии с типовой батареей на 60 киловатт выше примерно на 14 тысяч долларов. Таким образом, удешевление батарей сделает электромобили конкурентоспособными, полагают эксперты McKinsey.В 2014 году производитель электрокаров компания Tesla Motors приняла решение возвести гигафабрику, чтобы снизить стоимость производства аккумуляторов для электромобилей и избежать их прогнозируемого дефицита в 2017-2018 годах, когда на рынке появится электрокар Tesla Model III.https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/09/batareyka/
One of the conundrums of ethical decision making is that many moral decisions that are quite straightforward — even easy — to resolve in a classroom or during training exercises seem far more difficult to successfully resolve when confronted during actual day-to-day decision making. Take the decision of Sam Waksal, the former CEO of the emerging biotechnology company ImClone Systems. In late 2001 ImClone awaited approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of its much-heralded new cancer treatment, but unexpectedly the FDA decided to reject the company’s application. After privately learning of the FDA’s decision, Waksal called his daughter and told her to sell her ImClone shares before the news became public and the stock plummeted. To any outside observer, Waksal’s decision was incredibly shortsighted and unreflective. This was precisely the kind of insider trading that regulators routinely monitored, a fact that Waksal was not oblivious to. “I don’t know what I was thinking,” Waksal recalled as he struggled to understand how he could have made such a poor decision. “I wasn’t, sadly.” By all accounts, Waksal is a highly intelligent and strategic-minded individual, but when he faced this moral decision in practice, he failed. However, few, if any, individuals presented with this scenario in a training exercise would ever make the same decision. Waskal himself, if presented with this dilemma when it was neatly isolated from others, would have been unlikely to repeat the decision. Why are moral decisions, such as the one that Waksal faced, sometimes easily resolved in the classroom but often harder to successfully resolve in practice? There are three obstacles that make ethical decisions in the workplace different and more difficult than in training simulations. First, and most conspicuous, in exercises, the consequential decision is identified for participants. Instead of confronting the challenge of identifying which of the many hundreds of decisions made each day have ethical overtones, exercises hand the specific dilemma to participants. Such exercises vastly simplify one of the main challenges — identifying the ethical dilemma in the first place — by placing a single decision into focus. You and Your Team Series Thinking Strategically When You Feel Pressured to Do the Wrong Thing at Work Joseph L. Badaracco Keep a List of Unethical Things You’ll Never Do Mark Chussil When Tough Performance Goals Lead to Cheating Colm Healy and Karen Niven To appreciate how significant simply identifying an ethical dilemma is, consider the choice of Rajat Gupta, the former managing director of McKinsey & Company, to call a billionaire hedge fund trader after a Goldman Sachs board meeting. Gupta had spent decades successfully protecting client confidences and was widely applauded for his thoughtful and careful decision making. The breach of divulging confidential information from a board meeting to a trader ought to have been trivially easy to identify. Yet amid all the decisions he was making, he didn’t seem to identify the ethical nature of the consequential decision that he faced that day. Had the salience of the ethical decision been clearer, the chance that he would have identified the potential to err would have been greater, thus possibly averting this compromised decision. The second factor distinguishing training exercises from real-life decision making is that training inevitably exposes different points of views and judgments. Although many organizations outwardly express a desire for a diversity of opinions, in practice those differing viewpoints are often stifled by the desire to agree or appease others. Even at the most senior levels of the organization, independent directors struggle to dissent. For instance, Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco who grew the firm from obscurity into a global conglomerate but later faced criminal charges for embezzlement, recalled the challenge of board members genuinely disagreeing and pushing back on him as CEO when the firm was performing well. “When the CEO is in the room, directors — even independent directors — tend to want to try to please him,” Kozlowski explained. “The board would give me anything I wanted. Anything.” Finally, unlike in training, when a single decision might be given an hour of careful analysis, most actual decisions are made quickly and rely on intuition rather than careful, reflective reasoning. This can be especially problematic for moral decisions, which often rely on routine and intuitions that produce mindless judgements that don’t match up with how we’d desire to respond if we considered the decision with more time. To see just how easily we fall into the state of mindlessness, the social psychologist Ellen Langer conducted a clever experiment in the 1970s. Langer and her colleagues sent a trivial, nonsensical memo around an office, formatting it in the usual manner, whose only content was a command to return it (“This memo is to be returned to Room 247”). Although the rational response would be to dispose of the ridiculous memo, 90% returned it. When there’s precious little time to deeply reflect on decisions, we rely on routines and the surrounding norms to dictate behavior. In the recent case of Wells Fargo, most employees didn’t have the time or incentive to question the practice of cross-selling products without client approval; they relied on the surrounding culture that supported these corrupt practices. Remaining efficient and productive overtook deeper reflection on the ethical implications of “selling” products to customers without their knowledge. Had employees had greater opportunities to reflect on their actions in a less constrained and pressured workplace, many might have felt considerably less comfortable with these practices. The challenge for organizations is to cultivate environments where ethical decisions are easier, not more difficult. Creating training exercises that better simulate the actual environment, circumstances, and pressures where ethical decisions are made is the first step toward addressing these critical challenges. All high-performance athletes know they need to train in the same environment as the one in which they will compete. It ought to be no different for managers who must continually train and prepare for the big ethical decisions they will inevitably face.
Издание об идеях для бизнеса и саморазвитии «Идеономика» перевело статью консультантов McKinsey о том, какими способами можно вычислить в компании скрытого лидера.
Аккумуляторы для электромобилей подешевели на 80 процентов за период с 2010 по 2016 год. К такому выводу пришли специалисты консалтинговой компании McKinsey. Отмечается, что стоимость батареи составляет значительную часть цены электромобилей. Таким образом, удешевление батарей сделает их более конкурентоспособными.
Из-за значительной цены батарей электромобили пока отличает высокая цена, которая является основным тормозом мировых продаж электрокаров. И тем не менее, рост серийного производства батарей продолжает понижать их цену: за последние 7 лет аккумуляторы подешевели больше, чем на 50%. По данным исследования, проведенного консалтинговой фирмой McKinsey, в период с 2010 по 2016 годы на мировом рынке цена на батареи для электромобилей снизилась примерно на 80%. Этот момент тянет за собой и понижение цены на сами электромобили, что будет только повышать ихх привлекательность.
Исследование, проведенное компанией McKinsey за период с 2010 по 2016 годы показало, что на мировом рынке наблюдается серьезное снижение цен на аккумуляторы для электромобилей. Речь идет о снижении стоимости примерно
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