• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании2219
      • Показать ещё
      Разное683
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы309
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели69
      • Показать ещё
      Издания111
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации52
      • Показать ещё
      Формат33
      Люди164
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы4
25 марта, 06:45

Дэвид Рокфеллер. Динозавр сделал своё дело…

20 марта на 102-м году жизни скончался патриарх клана Рокфеллеров – Дэвид Рокфеллер (1915-2017). Ушедший из жизни миллиардер был продолжателем дела его деда, основателя династии Рокфеллеров – Джона Дэвисона Рокфеллера (1839-1937). Продолжение дела заключалось в приумножении капитала, но усопший не был ординарным капиталистом. Он был, прежде всего, был «креативной» фигурой и внёс заметный (некоторые считают – решающий) вклад в...

23 марта, 22:42

про аVanguard мировой экономики

В продолжение смартлабовского сериала О Кукле (здесь и здесь), на афтешоке появился цикл с правильным акцентом И всё-таки — кто реально контролирует мир? вот несколько выдержек из третьей, крайней) на данный момент, части «Во второй части было показано, что британская династия Виндзоров через свой именной фонд в Vanguard владеет акциями ряда американских производителей. Данная часть будет снова про Vanguard, и в ней будут рассмотрены конкретные персоналии этой компании, чтобы приоткрыть линии её влияния на американскую экономику и политику. 1. Фредерик Уильям МакНэбб III — данный породистый персонаж с ирландской фамилией является не только нынешним председателем и исполнительным директором компании Vanguard, но и вице-председателем Investment Company Institute (ICI). Президентом и исполнительным директором ICI является Пол Шотт Стивенс (Paul Schott Stevens) (фото), член Совета по международным отношениям. ICI — это американская национальная ассоциация инвестиционных компаний по управлению активами. Исторически она была учреждена Конгрессом США после краха фондового рынка в 1929 году с целью финансового регулирования. Акт Конгресса об инвестиционных компаниях 1940 года закрепил зоны ответственности этих компаний (вместе с Securities Act от 1933 года — это единственные нормы деятельности этих компаний). Своё нынешнее название ассоциация получила в 1961 году. В 2011 году она открыла филиал в Лондоне, а в 2013 году вышла на азиатский рынок, открыв филиал в Гонконге. Все фонды таких инвестиционных компаний размещены в офшорах, поэтому неудивительно, что сегодня Гонконг является одной из лидирующих офшорных зон, или, как говорят заинтересованные лица, „стран со свободной экономикой“.Будучи отраслевой ассоциацией, ICI объединяет в себе крупные инвестиционные компании. Если мы взглянем на список членов этой ассоциации, то найдём там и BlackRock, и Fidelity, и State Street, и другие известные в узких кругах названия. Сопоставим это с тем, что председатель Vanguard и вице-председатель ICI — одно и то же лицо, Ф. Уильям МакНэбб III, и вопрос о контроле Vanguard над остальными крупными инвестиционными компаниями снимется сам собой. Даже несмотря на то, что под управлением BlackRock находится активов на 5 трлн $ США, а под управлением Vanguard — только лишь на 4 трлн., BlackRock, как и остальные полутеневые финансовые хищники, находятся под надёжным контролем Vanguard через ICI.Однако сфера влияния ICI не ограничивается собственной отраслью. Она входит в список отраслевых союзов США, которые изначально созданы для защиты интересов компаний в соответствующих сферах. Номинально, она является равноправным членом этого списка. Но из первой части настоящего цикла статей мы помним, что группа Vanguard владеет значительной долей акций подавляющего большинства американских компаний. Поэтому естественно допустить, что и ICI занимает доминирующее положение по отношению к остальным отраслевым союзам. По-видимому, крупный бизнес Америки очень плотно прижат этой организацией, а национальный статус она обрела вследствие мощных усилий по лоббированию своих интересов. Говоря проще, ICI в своё время прогнула или подкупила американский госаппарат, чтобы он не мешал инвестиционным компаниям влиять на промышленных игроков (то есть, паразитировать на них).Других прямых организационных связей МакНэбба не прослеживается по открытым источникам, но и этой информации достаточно, чтобы понять, под кем лежит крупный частный капитал США. Отраслевые союзы являются промежуточным звеном между Vanguard и ICI с одной стороны и крупным бизнесом Америки — с другой. 2. Кэтлин Губанич — до сентября 2016 года была начальником по персоналу Vanguard. Является членом HR Planning Forum (форум по кадровому планированию) при уже знакомом нам Investment Company Institute. Также входит в члены правления American Benefits Council, ассоциации, ориентированной на предоставление выгодных пенсионных и страховочных программ для частных работодателей. Эта ассоциация принимала активное участие в реформе здравоохранения Обамы, продвигая предложения по реформированию качества, стоимости и страхового покрытия медицинских услуг. .. 3. С. Фитцджеральд Хэйни. C 2007 по 2015 год он являлся главой компании Pzena Investment Management, которая действует в качестве советника по инвестициям (investment advisor) при фонде Vanguard Windsor (это другой фонд британского престола, без цифры II в названии). Данная информация открыта и доступна для скачивания прямо с сайта Vanguard, в разделе Mutual Fund Prospectuses. Так вот, Хэйни является действующим послом США в Коста-Рике.Формально он не совмещает свою дипломатическую деятельность с работой на Vanguard, но в этой чрезвычайно жёсткой системе, как говорится, бывших не бывает. Даже из этого беглого обзора видно, что влияние Vanguard не ограничивается владением акциями крупных американских предприятий. Этот финансовый спрут также тянет свои щупальца во внешнюю политику, законодательную сферу, здравоохранение и экологию (используя для этого различные ассоциации и благотворительные фонды).»

23 марта, 13:52

Global Stocks, US Futures Rebound Ahead Of Critical Obamacare Repeal Vote, Yellen Speech

European and Asian stocks were modestly in the green, with U.S. futures higher, before a critical procedural vote on a Republican health-care bill to repeal Obamacare, while Janet Yellen is set to speak in Washington at 8:45am. S&P 500 Index futures were 3 points in the green as of 6:45am ET as European shares edged higher, underpinned by the first gains for miners and health care stocks all week. Bonds of periphery countries gained before the European Central Bank’s last dose of free long-term cash through the final round of Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations, which moments ago was announced at €233.5BN from 474 bidders, nearly double the €125BN expected. The yen gained for an eighth day, the longest winning streak in six years. As Bloomberg notes, calm returned to the market after Tuesday’s selloff sparked by positioning ahead of the Republican health-care bill, set for a vote in Congress around 7pm ET on Thursday, which the market appears confident will pass despite numerous holdouts remaining into the 11th hour. Any setback could delay enactment of tax cuts and spending increases, the prospects for which have underpinned the rally in risk assets since Trump’s election in November. Below is a good summary of what is at stake from DB's Jim Reid: Often in life and indeed in markets there are forks in the road with the knock-on impact and ultimate outcomes likely to be quite different depending on the initial path taken. Today's vote on AHCA in the House could be such an event. This might be slightly over dramatising things but it will give us big clues as to how revolutionary a Trump administration can be. If in the honeymoon period of the new administration they can't pass a bill replacing Obamacare (very unpopular with the GOP) then it clearly will dramatically reduce expectations of wider tax reform. Pass it and Trump trades may get back some of their recent lost energy.   The update yesterday was that more than 25 members of the Freedom Caucus still remain opposed to the bill, according to FT, which is enough to mean that there would be insufficient votes to pass (the general assumption is more 20 dissenters will result in it failing). This followed a day of extensive lobbying from Trump and House speaker Paul Ryan yesterday. According to multiple news reports, the suggestion however is that talks are still going on behind the scenes including discussions over revisions to the “essential benefits” requirements which appears to be the sticking point. Indeed the House Freedom Caucus is expected to come to the White House today prior to the vote and Mark Meadows, chair of the Caucus, said that “I’m very encouraged that we might be seeing some real headway” and also that “we are working very diligently tonight to try and get there”. So things are hanging in the balance and its set up to be an interesting day. While it’s clear that a loss for Trump would be a major legislative defeat with likely big ramifications for policies further down the line, what is less clear is what happens in the days following today’s vote if it fails and whether Trump would be prepared to go away and make the changes to allow the bill to pass in another vote. Indeed White House press secretary Sean Spicer offered zero hints on this front by saying that “there is no plan B” and instead “there’s a plan A and a plan A and we’re gonna get this done”. When asked if he would keep on pushing healthcare in the event of the House not passing the bill, President Trump also replied saying that he would “see what happens”. So that only adds to the uncertainty. Trump and Republican leaders of the House of Representatives have said they were making progress in their efforts to win over conservative Republicans who have demanded changes to the legislation. The vote on the bill, Trump's first major legislation since he took office, is expected later on Thursday. Perhaps only a successful passage of the vote provides some hope for a return to the Trump reflation trade, which has been almost entirely unwound by now, can come back: “The reflation rally in the U.S. stock markets appeared to have topped in March, causing a pullback after four months of unprecedented rise,” Ipek Ozkardeskaya, a market analyst at London Capital Group Ltd., wrote in a note. “Trump’s failure to push his plans through Congress dented investors’ appetite. Any positive news from today’s vote has the potential to revive the stock bulls.” "If he can't push through the bill, it would further damage stocks. It also raises the risk of his other policies, like tax cuts, being delayed," said Masafumi Yamamoto, chief forex strategist at Mizuho Securities in Tokyo. So heading into today's critical vote, stocks and sterling hold their ground as markets took the latest European terror attack, this time in London, one of the world's financial capitals, largely in their stride. The FTSEurofirst 300 barely budged as London, Frankfurt and Paris started flat and the pound fared better than most as the dollar began to muscle higher again in the currency markets. The history of these attacks, including those in France, Germany and Belgium last year as well those in London and Madrid more than 10 years ago, show little lasting impact on economic confidence or financial markets in isolation. Overnight in Asia MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan advanced 0.2 percent. Japan's Nikkei closed 0.2 percent higher, as a weaker yen offset a political scandal over the relationship of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his wife with a Japanese nationalist education group that bought state-owned land. China's CSI 300 rose early on hopes that index compiler MSCI may include A-shares in its indices, but those gains were lost as money began flowing out of the mainland market through link to the Hong Kong exchange. Wall Street futures were pointing to modest gains later too. On Wednesday the Nasdaq .IXIC jumped 0.5 percent and the S&P 500 closed 0.2 percent higher, while the Dow Jones was flat, after all three touched their lowest levels in about five weeks earlier in the session. [.N] Having weakened as much as 0.4 percent after news of the London attack which killed five, sterling held steady overnight and then climbed swiftly above $1.25 after more-resilient-than-expected UK retail sales data The dollar was also creeping higher again with attention firmly on Donald Trump's first significant U.S. policy test, as he looks to gets a healthcare bill passed in U.S. congress. "What we are getting this week is a questioning of how much of the risk rally is predicated on future Trump policy," said Michael Metcalfe, head of global macro strategy at State Street Global Markets. "There are concerns that this vote (on healthcare reform) will be a litmus test of how much fiscal expansion he can get through." After losing 3.5 percent in the past 10 days, the dollar was roughly steady at 111.19 yen. It gained 0.1 percent to $1.0786 per euro and up 0.15 percent against the basket of currencies used to measure its broader strength.  The euro and euro zone bond markets' focus was also on what the European Central Bank hopes will be its last offering of cheap, 3-year 'TLTRO' funding, once its main crisis fighting tool, and which today the ECB announced would amount to €233.5 billion. Yields on Portuguese, Spanish and Italian debt fell 1-3 basis points ahead of the handout, continuing along with French bonds to close the spread on German Bunds.  The bigger question for markets though is will it matter once these kinds of ECB loans are no longer available to banks. From now on they will only be able to get either 1-week or 3-month loans from Frankfurt. "Overall I do not think the absence of further longer-term operations will make much of a difference," said Francesco Papadia, the former head of ECB market operations who launched the offerings back in late 2011. "LTROs (long term lending operations) are among the easiest measures to take, much easier than QE, so if there was a need for them the ECB Governing Council would not have too much of a problem in reinstating them." With several major currency pairs steadying after a week of losses for the dollar, the biggest mover of the day was Australia's dollar, down half a percent on the back of nerves in China's money market and a slump in prices for its iron ore exports. The New Zealand dollar was steady at $0.7046 after its central bank held interest rates at a record low 1.75 percent, and reiterated it would remain there for a "considerable" period of time. In commodities markets, gold dipped lower and oil prices rebounded, after touching their lowest level since November overnight on data that showed U.S. inventories, already at a record high, grew by far more than forecast. Analysts said oil had found technical support and was being pushed up as traders took new long positions after the overnight low, but supply concerns kept the gains in check. U.S. crude CLc1 added 0.75 percent to $48.40 a barrel and global benchmark Brent LCOc1 climbed 0.7 percent to $50.99. Bulletin Headline Summary from RanSquawk Subdued affair in equity and bond markets, while focus in the latter will be the final TLTRO 2 release. GBP pops higher on the back of UK retail sales beating expectations Looking ahead, highlights include comments from Fed's Yellen, Kashkari and Kaplan as well as US  Weekly Jobless data. Market Snapshot S&P 500 futures up 0.2% to 2,346.25 STOXX Europe 600 up 0.1% to 374.6 MXAP up 0.06% to 147.40 MXAPJ up 0.1% to 477.93 Nikkei up 0.2% to 19,085.31 Topix up 0.01% to 1,530.41 Hang Seng Index up 0.03% to 24,327.70 Shanghai Composite up 0.1% to 3,248.55 Sensex up 0.3% to 29,262.30 Australia S&P/ASX 200 up 0.4% to 5,707.95 Kospi up 0.2% to 2,172.72 German 10Y yield unchanged at 0.407% Euro down 0.1% to 1.0785 per US$ Brent Futures up 0.4% to $50.82/bbl Italian 10Y yield fell 5.7 bps to 2.263% Spanish 10Y yield fell 3.2 bps to 1.705% Brent Futures up 0.4% to $50.82/bbl Gold spot down 0.1% to $1,247.51 U.S. Dollar Index up 0.1% to 99.78 Top Overnight News Trump Discusses Changes to Health Bill to Win Over Conservatives U.K. Police: Seven Arrested in Westminster Terror Probe Apple Acquires Productivity App Workflow for Undisclosed Sum Arbitrage for U.S. Gas to Europe and Asia ‘Wide-Open’: Citi Amazon Plans to Enter Online Retail of Food in India, Badal Says Google Ad Crisis Spreads as Biggest Marketers Halt Spending Glaxo, Regeneron, Biobank Plan Largest Gene-Sequencing Program Microsoft, Toyota Form Patent Pact on Connected-Car Technologies Energy Transfer Seeks to Place Trans-Pecos Gas Line in Service Asian equities traded mostly higher after the positive Wall St. close where tech names outperformed and US markets found reprieve from Tuesday's worst performance YTD. ASX 200 (+0.4%) was underpinned by strength in the utilities and energy sectors, while Nikkei 225 (+0.2%) was kept afloat as USD/JPY recouped losses. Elsewhere, earnings were in focus in China with financials supported after Ping An Insurance reported its FY net rose by 15% Y/Y. However, the Hang Seng (+0.1%) and Shanghai Comp. (-0.4%) pared gains amid weakness in telecoms and after a lacklustre liquidity operation by the PBoC. Finally, 10yr JGBs edged marginally higher despite the recovery of sentiment in Japan, with prices supported amid the BoJ presence in the market under its bond buying programme. PBoC injected CNY 10bIn in 7-day reverse repos, CNY 10bIn in 14-day reverse repos and CNY 10bIn in 28-day reverse repos. Top Asian News MSCI Pares Down China Stock Inclusion Proposal as Hurdles Remain India Said to Plan Using New Tool From April to Manage Cash Templeton Said to Buy About $1.2 Billion of Indian Bonds Tencent-Led Funding Round Said to Value Kuaishou at Around $3b Activist Hedge Fund Effissimo Becomes Toshiba’s Top Shareholder India Tribunal Approves Vedanta, Cairn India Merger; Stocks Rise Toyota Industries to Buy Netherlands’ Vanderlande for EU1.16b TonenGeneral, Kansai Elec. Abandon Coal Plant Project Top Buffalo Meat Exporter on Edge Amid Pledge to Cut Slaughter It thas been a quiet start to trading in European bourses, where large moves are unlikely to happen ahead of today's House vote on Obamacare repeal. Although, the notable mover this morning has been Next with shares higher by over 8% after their earnings update subsequently boosting related names. The price rise came despite a 3.8% annual fall in profits, however, the Co. did maintain guidance it issued in its January trading statement for the 2017-18 year - full price sales, at constant currency, while weakness in earnings would have been priced in given the gloomy outlook they announced over Christmas. In credit markets, price action has also been somewhat muted with the German benchmark up a modest 8 ticks as participants await the final TLTRO. Outperformance has been seen in BTPs as the GER-ITA spread tightening        some 3.5bps. Top European News ECB Ending Four-Year Loans Makes Banks Focus on Stimulus Exit Banks Trimming Compliance Staff as $321 Billion in Fines Abate Trump’s Associates May Have Coordinated With Russians: CNN Vienna Insurance Outperforms; Baader-Helvea Flags Valuation Avoid ‘Expensive’ German Stocks, Deutsche Bank Recommends U.K. Police Revise Death Toll of London Attack Down to Four Nets Stuck With Private Equity Overhang Longer After Share Slide Intesa Has Rerating Potential, ‘Premium’ Dividend Safe: Barclays Next Warns of Tough Year Ahead as Britons Cut Clothing Outlays Danish Government Reaches North Sea Tax Deal With Maersk In currencies, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index was 0.1 percent higher, rising the first time in seven days.  The euro was down by 0.2 percent at $1.0778, following a 0.1 percent drop.the major movers on the week continue to grab the headlines this morning, and starting with the Pound, the UK retail sales data show the inflationary impact of the heavy GBP losses seen post Brexit are not having a detrimental effect — yet. Feb's rise of 1.4% was a full 1% above consensus expectations, and this naturally put a fresh bid under Sterling, but the Cable move through is proving hard fought, with a move to 1.2527 swiftly reversed. EUR/GBP also stopped just shy of 0.8600, but with Article 50 set to be triggered next week, it is no surprise to see buyers taking profit on what are moderate moves as yet. In commodities, gold fell 0.2 percent to $1,246.06, after a six-day advance that totaled 4.2 percent. WTI Crude added 0.8 percent to $48.41 a barrel on speculation record U.S. crude stockpiles that have undermined OPEC’s output cuts may finally be set to shrink. Supply (and demand) issues are continually lurking in the background in all commodity classes with the exception of precious metals. Gold has hit levels just above USD1250 but failed to close above here — represents a key target/resistance levels. The rise in US treasuries alongside the fall in stocks/risk off have had a combined positive impact, but this may stabilise near term. Base metals prices have been under scrutiny given levels attained on future demand expectations, with iron ore price tumbling as China usage/stockpiles are brought to question — again. Copper and Nickel prices have been tempered by disruptions at some of the world's leading mines, but union leaders at Escondida set for a fresh meeting with BHP heads. Oil prices have again stabilised after fresh lows tested in WTI and Brent — the latter dipping under USD50.00. Pressure unlikely to subside as doubts over an agreement extension  continue. Inventory levels unlikely to be moderated without this. Looking at today’s calendar, this morning in Europe we get the last 4y ECB TLTRO II auction which is being highlighted as worth keeping an eye on for further signs of take-up. Bloomberg consensus is running at €110bn. Over in the US this afternoon we’ll get the latest weekly initial jobless claims print along with new home sales data in February and the Kansas City Fed’s manufacturing survey for March. Away from the data, as mentioned earlier Fed Chair Yellen is due to speak at 8:45am while Kashkari (at 1pm ET) and Kaplan (at 7pm GMT) are also scheduled today. BoE deputy governor Ben Broadbent is also due to speak this morning. The biggest event though for markets will likely be the House vote concerning the AHCA. Timing for this is still to be confirmed. US Event Calendar 8:30am: Initial Jobless Claims, est. 240,000, prior 241,000; Continuing Claims, est. 2.04m, prior 2.03m 9:45am: Bloomberg Consumer Comfort, prior 51 10am: New Home Sales, est. 564,000, prior 555,000; New Home Sales MoM, est. 1.62%, prior 3.7% 11am: Kansas City Fed Manf. Activity, est. 14, prior 14 Central Banks 8:45am: Fed’s Yellen Speaks at Community Development Conference 1pm: Fed’s Kashkari Speaks on U.S. Education Outcomes in D.C. 7pm: Dallas Fed’s Kaplan Speaks on Economy in Chicago DB's Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap Often in life and indeed in markets there are forks in the road with the knock-on impact and ultimate outcomes likely to be quite different depending on the initial path taken. Today's vote on AHCA in the House could be such an event. This might be slightly over dramatising things but it will give us big clues as to how revolutionary a Trump administration can be. If in the honeymoon period of the new administration they can't pass a bill replacing Obamacare (very unpopular with the GOP) then it clearly will dramatically reduce expectations of wider tax reform. Pass it and Trump trades may get back some of their recent lost energy. The update yesterday was that more than 25 members of the Freedom Caucus still remain opposed to the bill, according to FT, which is enough to mean that there would be insufficient votes to pass (the general assumption is more 20 dissenters will result in it failing). This followed a day of extensive lobbying from Trump and House speaker Paul Ryan yesterday. According to multiple news reports, the suggestion however is that talks are still going on behind the scenes including discussions over revisions to the “essential benefits” requirements which appears to be the sticking point. Indeed the House Freedom Caucus is expected to come to the White House today prior to the vote and Mark Meadows, chair of the Caucus, said that “I’m very encouraged that we might be seeing some real headway” and also that “we are working very diligently tonight to try and get there”. So things are hanging in the balance and its set up to be an interesting day. While it’s clear that a loss for Trump would be a major legislative defeat with likely big ramifications for policies further down the line, what is less clear is what happens in the days following today’s vote if it fails and whether Trump would be prepared to go away and make the changes to allow the bill to pass in another vote. Indeed White House press secretary Sean Spicer offered zero hints on this front by saying that “there is no plan B” and instead “there’s a plan A and a plan A and we’re gonna get this done”. When asked if he would keep on pushing healthcare in the event of the House not passing the bill, President Trump also replied saying that he would “see what happens”. So that only adds to the uncertainty. As we mentioned yesterday our US economists place a low probability on the bill being blocked and instead their base case remains for it being passed. This is primarily based on their view that since much of the Trump agenda rests on the ability of the Republicans to pass healthcare reform, its failure would seriously dent the party’s political capital and imperil other legislative  actions. They also believe that Senate opposition should lessen should the House pass the bill given it should become easier for more moderate Republican senators to support. It is worth noting though that the timeframe for all this is fairly tight. The effective deadline for the legislation to be passed by both chambers of Congress is April 28th. However with Congress effectively not in session from April 6th to April 24th there will only be four days to pass FY2017 budget legislation before the current continuing resolution expires. Otherwise the government could potentially shut down. This means that they expect the contours of the AHCA to take shape before April 6th. Markets in the US are set to go into the vote in a slightly better mood following the steep selloff on Tuesday. While still well down over 2 days, the S&P 500 did close up +0.19% last night and so putting an end to that run of four consecutive down days. US Banks (-0.24%) did finish a bit weaker, not helped by a further decline for Treasury yields with the 10y (-1.3bps) down for the  fourth day in a row and to a new three week low of 2.406%. That had a greater supporting impact on credit indices though with CDX IG closing 1.3bps tighter and completely reversing Tuesday’s move wider. The same can’t be said for US HY energy cash spreads however which were another 10bps wider yesterday at 486bps, despite a bit of bounce for WTI back above $48/bbl. Spreads have now widened for 12 of the last 14 sessions and are at 3-month wides again. These moves are certainly worth keeping an eye on. Meanwhile equity markets in Europe had previously finished a bit softer likely also reflecting some catch up from the prior US session. The Stoxx 600 closed -0.44% while in the UK the FTSE 100 ended -0.73% following the tragic attacks outside UK Parliament which authorities are treating as a terror attack. Sterling was weaker in the aftermath but reversed losses into the close to finish little changed. Before we look at the latest in Asia this morning its worth highlighting that Fed Chair Yellen is scheduled to speak at lunchtime today (12.45pm GMT to be precise). She will speak at a community development research conference in Washington so it remains to be seen if she addresses monetary policy at all, but nevertheless it is worth keeping an eye on. Refreshing our screens now, markets in Asia have largely followed the lead from the US with most major bourses posting small gains. The Nikkei (+0.12%), Hang Seng (+0.35%), Shanghai Comp (+0.31%), Kospi (+0.32%) and ASX (+0.29%) are amongst those higher. US equity index futures are posting similar gains while the Yen and Gold have both eased back about -0.20%. Moving on. It’s flown under the radar a little recently given the focus on France but the latest polls in Italy are hinting at some rising support for the anti-establishment 5-Star movement. Indeed an Ipsos poll in the Corriere della Sera newspaper puts the 5-Star at 32.3% and 5.5% ahead of the Democratic Party at 26.8%. That is the highest reading we can find for the 5-Star movement. Other polls in recent days run by Demopolis, IPR and EMG show the margin lead for 5-Star at between 3% and 7% over the Democratic Party with the overall percentage for 5-Star between 30% and 31%. The vast majority of polls run in February showed the Democrats as holding a marginal lead. Unsurprisingly there are plenty of question marks about 5-Star actually being able to create a government given its aversion to forging coalitions but the moves in the polls are worth keeping an eye on. Staying with politics, yesterday’s notable Brexit update was the comments from EU negotiator Michel Barnier. He said in a meeting of EU commissioners that there will be no talks on a future deal without agreement on the Brexit bill which runs against the UK government’s strategy of conducting talks on the exit and a deal at the same time. He also said that a transitional deal is  possible but that it will still be governed by European law. Some interesting early signs then of the EU’s negotiating stance. Away from politics, yesterday’s data was once again fairly second tier in nature and had little impact on markets. There was little to note in Europe while in the US existing home sales were reported as falling -3.7% mom in February and a bit more than expected. The FHFA house price index was also flat in January versus consensus expectations for a +0.4% mom rise. Before we wrap up, yesterday our Global Economics Perspectives team published their latest note looking at how the US economy is performing in Q1. They argue that whilst indicators are suggesting that another Q1 growth disappointment is possible, there are five reasons why it should not be feared: (1) GDP growth is likely to be understated due to lingering issues with seasonal adjustment, perhaps depressing reported growth by 1pp; (2) the weak growth signal from hard data is inconsistent with more supportive indications from surveys, sentiment data, and financial conditions; (3) even if real GDP growth slows, private domestic demand growth looks solid, with capex and housing improving; (4) slowing real consumer spending growth is driven in part by an uptick in inflation and should thus prove temporary; and (5) prospects for President Trump's policy agenda will remain the key driver of shifts in the US growth outlook. Looking at today’s calendar, this morning in Europe we’re kicking off shortly after  this hits your emails with consumer confidence indicators in both Germany and France. Shortly after that we will get the February retail sales data in the UK before we then get the last 4y ECB TLTRO II auction which is being highlighted as worth keeping an eye on for further signs of take-up. Bloomberg consensus is running at €110bn. Over in the US this afternoon we’ll get the latest weekly initial jobless claims print along with new home sales data in February and the Kansas City Fed’s manufacturing survey for March. Away from the data, as mentioned earlier Fed Chair Yellen is due to speak shortly after lunch, while Kashkari (at 5pm GMT) and Kaplan (at 11pm GMT) are also scheduled today. BoE deputy governor Ben Broadbent is also due to speak this morning. The biggest event though for markets will likely be the House vote concerning the AHCA. Timing for this is still to be confirmed.

23 марта, 09:21

Доллар обвалился к уровням 2015 года. Куда американцы тратят деньги?

С того момента как Федеральная резервная система повысила ставки, доллар падает практически без остановки и уже достиг минимумов с ноября, сообщает Вести.Экономика. Широкий индекс доллара, который рассчитывает агентство Bloomberg, опустился до минимумов ноября 2015 года - до уровня в 1221 пунктов, отыграв весь рост после победы Трампа. Индикатор снижается уже пять дней кряду. Более того, это пятидневное падение стало самым сильным за два года, то есть с марта 2015 г. Похожая картина наблюдается и с классическим индексом доллара - отношение американской валюты к шести основным валютам - он торгуется ниже отметки 100 пунктов. Точного объяснения динамики доллара у участников рынка нет. Одна из гипотез - разочарование политикой президента США Дональда Трампа. Лучше всего о настроении участников рынка говорит статистика по открытым позициям, хотя она и выходит с задержкой. Так, например, до заседания Федрезерва, которое состоялось на прошлой неделе, число коротких позиций в паре EUR/USD было минимальным с мая прошлого года, а сейчас и вовсе, возможно, позиции сбалансировались, а такое последний раз было еще в середине 2014 г. Именно единая европейская валюта занимает в индексе доллара больше половины.

19 марта, 19:01

G20 unites on forex stance but no trade consensus

FINANCIAL leaders from the world’s biggest economies found common ground on foreign exchange at a G20 meeting on Saturday but failed to agree on trade, highlighting a global shift toward protectionism

15 марта, 01:16

THE STUPIDEST STATUE. At Commentary, Noah Rothman writes: Last week, an idol was erected in the str…

THE STUPIDEST STATUE. At Commentary, Noah Rothman writes: Last week, an idol was erected in the streets of Manhattan: a bronze statue of a defiant young girl standing rigid and resolute in the face of the iconic Wall Street bull. It seems we are to be bludgeoned by expressions of cultural fealty to the statue until […]

Выбор редакции
14 марта, 20:05

The 'Fearless Girl' statue sums up what's wrong with feminism today | Cara Marsh Sheffler

Corporate feminism always ends up betraying women’s struggle for justice. That’s why this Wall Street-funded sculpture will never be a symbol to embraceForget the ruby red slippers: this season’s wish-fulfillment accessory is a knitted pink hat. No need to click your heels, little girls. If you care to summon Glinda Gecko the Good Corporate Witch, just place your fists on your hips three times! There’s no place like Wall Street … There’s no place like Wall Street... There’s no place like Wall Street. Greed is good – and good for girls! Time to lean in to corporate bull. State Street Global Advisors, the investment firm behind the ‘Fearless Girl’ sculpture temporarily placed in front of the famous Wall Street bull, pulled off a formidable marketing coup when they placed the statue there on Women’s Day. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that it is a brave feminist statement. It is not. Continue reading...

14 марта, 00:46

Time to Buy Biotech ETFs?

After a painful 2016, biotech stocks are recovering this year. What lies ahead?

13 марта, 23:38

The Backstory Behind That 'Fearless Girl' Statue on Wall Street

State Street Global Advisors commissioned the work as part of a broader push to get more women onto corporate boards.

13 марта, 14:11

Outline of MassMutual Select Mid Cap Growth Equity II Class I Fund (MEFZX)

MassMutual Select Mid Cap Growth Equity II Class I Fund (MEFZX) seeks capital growth for the long run

12 марта, 07:03

Man In Suit Humping 'Fearless Girl' Statue Is Why We Need Feminism

One bro in a suit wants to remind the world that misogyny is alive and well. Days after an investment management firm installed the “Fearless Girl” statue in front of The Charging Bull in downtown New York, one man decided it was time to hump the statue. The lewd act was photographed by Alexis Kaloyanides and posted to social media, where it went viral. According to the picture’s caption, the man thrusted his hips in front of the statue as his friends watched. “Almost as if out of central casting, some Wall Street finance broseph appeared and started humping the statue while his gross date rape-y friends laughed and cheered him on,” Kaloyanides wrote on Friday. “He pretended to have sex with the image of a little girl,” she continued. “Douchebags like this are why we need feminism.” The “Fearless Girl” is an act of political art by investment management firm State Street. The image of her staring down the bronze bull, a masculine and powerful symbol for Wall Street, is supposed to raise awareness of the need for gender diversity. After it was installed on Tuesday, the statue quickly became a popular attraction, with women and little girls visiting the financial district just to pose next to it with their own confidence and power. Then, with a few mimicked thrusts, one man in a suit attempted to wipe the statue’s symbolism away. “He was gone within 20 seconds, but it just ruined the mood of the scene,” Kaloyanides told Inside Edition. “There were people talking about empowering children and women and for then to have this 20-something showing his entitlement, defiling the statue ... it was utterly revolting.” In just two days, Kaloyanides’ photo of the man has been shared on Facebook more than 19,000 times. “This is just further perpetuating a mentality of ‘boys will be boys,’ and that ‘it’s okay, it’s a joke, just brush it off,’” Kaloyanides told Inside Edition. “This young man likely has a mother, a sister perhaps, a girlfriend, a wife ― who knows? I’m getting tired of making excuses and laughing it off. I for one am not gonna laugh it off anymore.” Just as the “Fearless Girl” statue represents female empowerment, the image of this man defiling it represents why we need feminism in the first place. -- 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.

12 марта, 07:03

Man In Suit Humping 'Fearless Girl' Statue Is Why We Need Feminism

One bro in a suit wants to remind the world that misogyny is alive and well. Days after an investment management firm installed the “Fearless Girl” statue in front of The Charging Bull in downtown New York, one man decided it was time to hump the statue. The lewd act was photographed by Alexis Kaloyanides and posted to social media, where it went viral. According to the picture’s caption, the man thrusted his hips in front of the statue as his friends watched. “Almost as if out of central casting, some Wall Street finance broseph appeared and started humping the statue while his gross date rape-y friends laughed and cheered him on,” Kaloyanides wrote on Friday. “He pretended to have sex with the image of a little girl,” she continued. “Douchebags like this are why we need feminism.” The “Fearless Girl” is an act of political art by investment management firm State Street. The image of her staring down the bronze bull, a masculine and powerful symbol for Wall Street, is supposed to raise awareness of the need for gender diversity. After it was installed on Tuesday, the statue quickly became a popular attraction, with women and little girls visiting the financial district just to pose next to it with their own confidence and power. Then, with a few mimicked thrusts, one man in a suit attempted to wipe the statue’s symbolism away. “He was gone within 20 seconds, but it just ruined the mood of the scene,” Kaloyanides told Inside Edition. “There were people talking about empowering children and women and for then to have this 20-something showing his entitlement, defiling the statue ... it was utterly revolting.” In just two days, Kaloyanides’ photo of the man has been shared on Facebook more than 19,000 times. “This is just further perpetuating a mentality of ‘boys will be boys,’ and that ‘it’s okay, it’s a joke, just brush it off,’” Kaloyanides told Inside Edition. “This young man likely has a mother, a sister perhaps, a girlfriend, a wife ― who knows? I’m getting tired of making excuses and laughing it off. I for one am not gonna laugh it off anymore.” Just as the “Fearless Girl” statue represents female empowerment, the image of this man defiling it represents why we need feminism in the first place. -- 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.

Выбор редакции
10 марта, 00:39

За гендерное равенство: американцы установили памятник бесстрашной девочке

У знаменитой статуи бронзового быка, которая находится возле здания Нью-Йоркской фондовой биржи, появилась компания. Организация по управлению активами «State Street Global Advisors» установила бронзовую статую под названием «Бесстрашная девочка».  Фото: russian.rt.com

09 марта, 21:42

Why The 'Fearless Girl' Statue Is Kinda Bull

It’s impossible not to feel something when you look at her. The sculpture of the slender little girl in downtown New York is as defiant and fierce as advertised: her little feet firmly planted, hands on hips, head lifted upwards. She’s bravely facing off with one of Wall Street’s most masculine, powerful symbols: The Charging Bull. Crowds flocked to the girl this week, after State Street, a massive investment management firm, placed her in front of the iconic bronze bovine, installed in 1989 to symbolize Wall Street’s roaring return from that decade’s stock market crash. But don’t let emotions about this piece of art fool you. That adorable, perfectly irresistible little girl is just a super-sophisticated bit of feminist marketing, used to make us feel good and do little that is substantive. You can think of the bronze sculpture, called “Fearless Girl,” and the gender awareness campaign State Street launched along with it, as kind of like a 401(k) ― another consumer product pumped out by the financial industry: It’s better than nothing and definitely not enough. The girl represents “the future,” State Street says in a press release. Her adorable visage is an act of political art, the company said, to force a conversation about one of the dullest and yet most important issues in the business world that no regular person cares about: the boardroom. Board members represent the pinnacle of corporate power, advising, hiring and firing the CEOs of companies. They can help set the overall tone and strategy of a company. And overwhelmingly they are male. “We are calling on companies to take concrete steps to increase gender diversity on their boards and have issued clear guidance to help them begin to take action,” State Street said in its press release, issued the day before International Women’s Day. What State Street failed to mention is that the company doesn’t actually have a lot of women on its own board ― or at the top of its leadership team. Only three women sit on State Street’s board of directors out of 11 seats. That’s 27 percent. Just two years ago, there were only two women on its board. Less than one-quarter ― just 23 percent ― of State Street’s executive vice-presidents are women. And only 28 percent of senior vice-presidents are female.  If the goal is gender equality, State Street’s women stats are terrible. They reveal the sculpture and the call to action as a mostly empty seduction, not unlike Ivanka Trump’s non-threatening #WomenWhoWork marketing campaign or a male-dominated car company like Audi using women’s economic inequality to hawk luxury vehicles. Yet State Street doesn’t think it’s doing that badly when it comes to hiring and promoting women, a spokeswoman told The Huffington Post on Thursday. “Three and 27 percent is better than zero,” said the company’s head of public relations Ann McNally, referring to the number and percent of women on its board. Those stats are only moderately higher than average. Only 21 percent of board seats at Fortune 500 companies are occupied by women, she noted, also emphasizing that 1 in 4 firms on the Russell 3000 index, the companies that make-up 98 percent of the stock market, have no female board members. That is indeed shockingly terrible. McNally concedes that progress industry-wide has been slow. “It’s not moving fast enough,” she said. But at the same time argues that State Street practices what it preaches. State Street said earlier this month that it would, in a year, consider using its power as a shareholder in public companies to force change by voting against board members who don’t do anything to nominate women. If a board doesn’t put up a woman, State Street would ask for proof that it tried, it said. Still, the preference is for more gentle pressure. “Our preferred engagement process is engagement,” McNally said, somewhat inscrutably, meaning they want to have conversations about this stuff ― rather than take harsher action. State Street, like many other firms who are lagging on diversity, has set company-wide diversity goals. They’re pretty modest: getting the vice-president number up six percentage points by the end of this year, for example. And like a handful of other well-intentioned firms, the company makes achieving diversity goals something that managers are evaluated on in performance reviews. This is commendable. However, they’re still not hiring women at anywhere near parity. Thirty percent of new hires in 2016 were women, McNally said. She declined to give anymore detail on the gender composition of the 33,000-employee firm or detail which divisions of the company are hiring the women. At many finance firms, women are shunted into divisions like Human Resources and legal, which are not responsible for profits and are considered not quite as important to the firm. At State Street, for example, there are only two women on the management committee, the Human Resource chief and the chief administrative officer. For all its bluster and programs and calls to action and art pieces, State Street isn’t treating the lack of diversity as it would a core business problem. You’d imagine that if, say, profits were down by a considerable amount, the firm would take action to immediately rectify the problem. Indeed, the firm recovered quickly after receiving bailout money from the federal government during the financial crisis. That brings us to something else about this sculpture: It makes you feel really good about a massive financial institution less than a decade after the 2008 crisis, which made us all feel very badly about massive financial institutions. It wasn’t that long ago that Wall Street ― led overwhelmingly by men ― crashed the global economy, forcing millions of families out of their homes, driving massive job loss. While investors and the richest Americans have bounced back and beyond from the 2008 crisis, regular people most certainly have not. When a firm like State Street successfully co-opts feminism for marketing purposes, it lulls us all into forgetting. We’re essentially “empowered” to keep buying into the current system, despite the fact that it has so clearly shortchanged women (and men). But never mind all that, look at that cutie girl!  Not a woman, of course. A fierce woman facing down the bull, one imagines, would have actually been too threatening to make this marketing ploy work. -- 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.

09 марта, 21:42

Why The 'Fearless Girl' Statue Is Kinda Bull

It’s impossible not to feel something when you look at her. The sculpture of the slender little girl in downtown New York is as defiant and fierce as advertised: her little feet firmly planted, hands on hips, head lifted upwards. She’s bravely facing off with one of Wall Street’s most masculine, powerful symbols: The Charging Bull. Crowds flocked to the girl this week, after State Street, a massive investment management firm, placed her in front of the iconic bronze bovine, installed in 1989 to symbolize Wall Street’s roaring return from that decade’s stock market crash. But don’t let emotions about this piece of art fool you. That adorable, perfectly irresistible little girl is just a super-sophisticated bit of feminist marketing, used to make us feel good and do little that is substantive. You can think of the bronze sculpture, called “Fearless Girl,” and the gender awareness campaign State Street launched along with it, as kind of like a 401(k) ― another consumer product pumped out by the financial industry: It’s better than nothing and definitely not enough. The girl represents “the future,” State Street says in a press release. Her adorable visage is an act of political art, the company said, to force a conversation about one of the dullest and yet most important issues in the business world that no regular person cares about: the boardroom. Board members represent the pinnacle of corporate power, advising, hiring and firing the CEOs of companies. They can help set the overall tone and strategy of a company. And overwhelmingly they are male. “We are calling on companies to take concrete steps to increase gender diversity on their boards and have issued clear guidance to help them begin to take action,” State Street said in its press release, issued the day before International Women’s Day. What State Street failed to mention is that the company doesn’t actually have a lot of women on its own board ― or at the top of its leadership team. Only three women sit on State Street’s board of directors out of 11 seats. That’s 27 percent. Just two years ago, there were only two women on its board. Less than one-quarter ― just 23 percent ― of State Street’s executive vice-presidents are women. And only 28 percent of senior vice-presidents are female.  If the goal is gender equality, State Street’s women stats are terrible. They reveal the sculpture and the call to action as a mostly empty seduction, not unlike Ivanka Trump’s non-threatening #WomenWhoWork marketing campaign or a male-dominated car company like Audi using women’s economic inequality to hawk luxury vehicles. Yet State Street doesn’t think it’s doing that badly when it comes to hiring and promoting women, a spokeswoman told The Huffington Post on Thursday. “Three and 27 percent is better than zero,” said the company’s head of public relations Ann McNally, referring to the number and percent of women on its board. Those stats are only moderately higher than average. Only 21 percent of board seats at Fortune 500 companies are occupied by women, she noted, also emphasizing that 1 in 4 firms on the Russell 3000 index, the companies that make-up 98 percent of the stock market, have no female board members. That is indeed shockingly terrible. McNally concedes that progress industry-wide has been slow. “It’s not moving fast enough,” she said. But at the same time argues that State Street practices what it preaches. State Street said earlier this month that it would, in a year, consider using its power as a shareholder in public companies to force change by voting against board members who don’t do anything to nominate women. If a board doesn’t put up a woman, State Street would ask for proof that it tried, it said. Still, the preference is for more gentle pressure. “Our preferred engagement process is engagement,” McNally said, somewhat inscrutably, meaning they want to have conversations about this stuff ― rather than take harsher action. State Street, like many other firms who are lagging on diversity, has set company-wide diversity goals. They’re pretty modest: getting the vice-president number up six percentage points by the end of this year, for example. And like a handful of other well-intentioned firms, the company makes achieving diversity goals something that managers are evaluated on in performance reviews. This is commendable. However, they’re still not hiring women at anywhere near parity. Thirty percent of new hires in 2016 were women, McNally said. She declined to give anymore detail on the gender composition of the 33,000-employee firm or detail which divisions of the company are hiring the women. At many finance firms, women are shunted into divisions like Human Resources and legal, which are not responsible for profits and are considered not quite as important to the firm. At State Street, for example, there are only two women on the management committee, the Human Resource chief and the chief administrative officer. For all its bluster and programs and calls to action and art pieces, State Street isn’t treating the lack of diversity as it would a core business problem. You’d imagine that if, say, profits were down by a considerable amount, the firm would take action to immediately rectify the problem. Indeed, the firm recovered quickly after receiving bailout money from the federal government during the financial crisis. That brings us to something else about this sculpture: It makes you feel really good about a massive financial institution less than a decade after the 2008 crisis, which made us all feel very badly about massive financial institutions. It wasn’t that long ago that Wall Street ― led overwhelmingly by men ― crashed the global economy, forcing millions of families out of their homes, driving massive job loss. While investors and the richest Americans have bounced back and beyond from the 2008 crisis, regular people most certainly have not. When a firm like State Street successfully co-opts feminism for marketing purposes, it lulls us all into forgetting. We’re essentially “empowered” to keep buying into the current system, despite the fact that it has so clearly shortchanged women (and men). But never mind all that, look at that cutie girl!  Not a woman, of course. A fierce woman facing down the bull, one imagines, would have actually been too threatening to make this marketing ploy work. -- 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.

09 марта, 20:43

5-Year-Old Brings 'Fearless Girl' Statue On Wall Street To Life

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); On International Women’s Day, Alex Almonte took her 5-year-old daughter, Abrianna Tomar Almonte, to see Wall Street’s new statue of “The Fearless Girl.” What she thought would be a typical day out turned into something symbolic.  Abrianna didn’t have school on Wednesday. That morning, she and her mom ate breakfast and saw on the news that a statue of a girl had been placed to face Wall Street’s famous charging bull statue. It’s called “The Fearless Girl” and was put up by asset management group State Street Global Advisors. Alex took her daughter to see the statue, and Abrianna brought it to life with her excellent outfit choice.  Alex asked Abrianna that morning if she wanted to take the train from Harlem to see the statue, and Abrianna decided she’d wear her Owlette costume to look like the superhero from the show “PJ Masks.” Abrianna likes to wear costumes often and has found a way to bond with her brother who has autism through them.  “It’s her way of catching his attention a little bit so he can play with her and bond,” Alex told The Huffington Post.  When Alex and Abrianna finally arrived downtown at the statue, Abrianna asked if she could take her jacket off momentarily to take a photo with “The Fearless Girl” while wearing her superhero costume. Alex gave the OK, but by the time she got her camera out of her bag everyone else checking out the statue was taking photos of Abrianna. “She was already standing next to the statue, and people were taking pictures of her and telling her, ‘Oh, can you put your arm up?’” she said. Photos of Abrianna mimicking the statue are now all over social media. The next day, she showed her teacher the photos and learned that people at school had seen the pics, but had no idea it was her behind the superhero costume. Alex finally got her own photos of her daughter with the statue before they left.  On their way home, Alex talked to her daughter about what happened that day. She said that “The Fearless Girl” was a superhero, prompting her daughter to ask what her “superpower” was.  “She kind of represents all of us, all women,” Alex told her daughter. “She’s trying to empower us and show us to be great.” H/T CNN The HuffPost Parents newsletter offers a daily dose of personal stories, helpful advice and comedic takes on what it’s like to raise kids today. Sign up here. -- 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.

09 марта, 16:15

Now That Bitcoins Are Worth More Than Their Weight In Gold, Is It Time For Central Banks To Make Their Own?

BTC Keychain/Flickr, CC BY-SA Nafis Alam, Sunway University and Graham Kendall, University of Nottingham The history of gold trading can be traced back hundreds of years while bitcoin, a digital currency that uses encryption and works independently of central banks, has been around for less than ten. But the cryptocurrency is now starting to challenge gold as the investment of choice. Its meteoric rise is such that on March 3, 2017, bitcoin overtook gold for the first time, trading at US$1,290 compared to US$1,228 for an ounce of gold. All the gold that has ever been mined would easily fit under the legs of the Eiffel Tower – in fact, multiple times. Gold’s scarcity is one reason for its value. Another reason is that it’s a very nonreactive metal so it doesn’t tarnish, which is important if you’ve invested millions and don’t want it to slowly deteriorate. Most governments keep some of their funds in gold (as the video below explains). But although gold is seen as a safe haven in times of crisis, it is still subject to the usual market fluctuations of any commodity. Once the bitcoin reaches its full potential (all bitcoins are mined) the value will be much more stable. How much gold is there and why is it a good investment? What is bitcoin? Bitcoin is a virtual currency used for electronic purchases and transfers. It has recently been gaining popularity and a growing number of businesses, including WordPress, Overstock.com, and Reddit, now accept it as a form of payment. Microsoft already accepts bitcoin payments through its Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile platforms, while those shopping online at Shopify may use bitcoin as payment. Bitcoin is also moving outside the virtual space; what may be the world’s first bitcoin store, House of Nakamoto, opened early this year in Vienna. There, people can buy bitcoins for euros, and vice versa, from a dedicated bitcoin ATM. Drinkers in Cambridge can pay for beers at a pub called The Haymakers. The number of bitcoins is capped at 21 million. As of March 2017, there were almost 16.2 million circulating. The supply of coins grows steadily because of the way bitcoin is programmed. Each “miner” (“mining” is lingo for the discovery of new bitcoins – anyone with computer knowledge and access to blockchain software can act as a miner) introduces new coins to the supply at a rate of around 12.5 coins every ten minutes. Mining is the process of adding transaction records to bitcoin’s public ledger of past transactions (blockchain). The blockchain confirms transactions as having taken place to the rest of the network. Even as far back as 2013, bitcoin was worth almost as much as gold. And, at the end of 2016, the total value of bitcoins in circulation was US$14bn. A good investment opportunity? Investment in digital currencies, such as bitcoin, has emerged as an alternative to traditional forms of money and created a niche that’s driving major innovations in the financial sector, such as peer-to-peer lending, and digital wallets. As traders gain confidence in alternative forms of money and payment mechanisms, bitcoin is seen as a possible investment alternative. In fact, bitcoin exhibits similar features to gold – limited global supply, maintaining value and hedging against global market volatility. Such is the exuberance in bitcoin investment that it actually outperforms the precious metal, generating an annual return of 155% compared to gold’s annual loss of 6% during the same time period. Even though Bitcoin seems a profitable investment tool, its value can be as volatile as the value of the gold, depending on the perceived risk of owning bitcoin as a commodity. Bitcoins are encrypted for security purposes, but while the coding identifies the currency itself, it does not identify its owner. If someone hacks the miner system and gets a secret bitcoin code they will eventually become the rightful owner. Even though Bitcoin seems a profitable investment tool, its value can be as volatile as the value of the gold, depending on the perceived risk of owning bitcoin as a commodity. What, then, is pushing the investment value of bitcoin? One driver is increasing demand from developing countries, especially Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. These countries are experiencing economic distress and weakening currencies, making their local currencies unpredictable and volatile. As a result, it’s becoming increasingly popular to use bitcoin as a natural hedge against paper currency. Another contributing factor to the rise of bitcoin is the possibility of a trade war between US and China. US President Donald Trump has indicated that he may impose 45% tariff on Chinese imports. This may lead to a weakening yuan, and capital outflow from China as investors will resort to more stable currencies such as euros. The hike in bitcoin’s price during financial troubles is also a testament to its increasing attraction as a hedging tool. When Cyprus’s economy crashed in 2013, the price of bitcoins spiked as people resorted to other forms of payment than the national currency. In 2015, when the Chinese currency was in free fall, people in the country turned to bitcoin alongside gold. And after the Brexit vote in the UK, when global currencies and stock markets tanked, bitcoin’s value rose more than US$100 compared to the previous day. This was mainly due to some of the speculative money flowing out of the pound and yuan making its way to bitcoin. Increased government support Bitcoin is not just getting increased interest from tech-savvy individuals and banks such as Barclays, BBVA, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, State Street, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS. Governments are also lending support to the cryptocurrency. The Australian government plans to reduce tax on bitcoin transactions. Current treatment of the digital currency under the goods and services tax (GST) law means that consumers are “double taxed” when using it to buy anything already subject to GST. The government plans to change this. Meanwhile, the UK’s chief scientific adviser has said that governments should use bitcoin’s underlying technology – blockchains – to help with taxes, benefits and passports. Taking its cue from bitcoin, the US government is planning to launch a legalized cryptocurrency called Fedcoin, which can be exchanged for a physical dollar. Bitcoin is not considered legal tender because it is not backed by any government. What we can say with certainty is that we cannot use gold to buy bitcoin directly but bitcoin can be used to buy gold. Bitcoin pricing is also motivating the much-anticipated establishment of the first bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) in the United States. An ETF is an investment company that has no restrictions on the amount of shares it can issue. The approval of a bitcoin ETF would make the cryptocurrency more attractive to risk-averse institutional investors as it would allow an easier way to gain access to bitcoin than buying it directly. Such is the dominance of bitcoin that the Bank of England issued a white paper on the subject, investigating the possibility of central banks minting their own cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin’s appeal, compared to gold, comes from two factors. First, it can be used as an easy medium for payments (for a limited but growing number of transactions), which gold cannot replicate. And with their limited supply of 21 million, bitcoins are likely to attract higher demand compared to gold. The debate over the supremacy of gold versus bitcoin will continue. What we can say with certainty is that we cannot use gold to buy bitcoin directly but bitcoin can be used to buy gold. You can decide which you prefer. Nafis Alam, Professor of Finance, Sunway University and Graham Kendall, Professor of Computer Science and Provost/CEO/PVC, University of Nottingham This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. -- 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.

Выбор редакции
09 марта, 15:37

Напротив "Атакующего Быка" на Уолл-Стрит установили статую "Бесстрашной девочки"

Бронзовая скульптура является частью кампании, которая должна убедить всех, что фирмы, которыми руководят женщины, более успешны в финансовом отношении.

09 марта, 02:07

The Atlantic Politics & Policy Daily: The World’s Greatest Politics Newsletter of 2017

Republican Representative Pete Sessions has proposed the "World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017.”

Выбор редакции
08 марта, 23:02

Быка на скаку остановит!

(Вторая по величине компания по управлению активами в мире State Street Global Advisors установила на Уолл-стрит бронзовый памятник, изображающий девочку, дерзко глядящую в глаза знаменитой статуе быка).https://usa.one/2017/03/na-wall-street-poyavilas-novaya-skulptura-posvyashhennaya-zhenskoj-sile/

03 декабря 2015, 09:40

S&P снизило рейтинг восьми крупнейших банков США

Американское рейтинговое агентство Standard & Poor's объявило о понижении кредитного рейтинга восьми крупнейших банков США, среди которых JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. и Citigroup Inc., сообщает Bloomberg.

29 июля 2015, 07:06

Кто владеет Apple? Скрытые хозяева мира

"Инвестор и основной акционер компании Apple Карл Айкан оценил стоимость одной акции этой компании в $216, что на $91 выше их текущей стоимости. По мнению Айкана, капитализация Apple должна составлять около $1,3 трлн" (РБК) Оставим вопрос о справедливости такой фантастической стоимости акций, и  примем за факт, что Apple - крупнейшая мировая компания. Зададим простой, но щекотливый вопрос, кто владеет этой компанией, по стоимости равной бюджетам нескольких европейских стран вместе взятых? Казалось бы, в цитате от РБК четко и ясно указано , что основной акционер некий Карл Айкан, эксцентричный милииардер, циничная акула бизнеса, известный рейдер и вымогатель, скандалист и многое другое. Собственно, именно он чаще всего и упоминается в СМИ как главный акционер и ньюсмейкер. Есть ещё Тим Кук - генеральный директор Apple (тот, что официальный гей), но он фигура назначаемая акционерами, то есть владельцем не является никак.  Однако, внимательно изучив ситуацию, мы обнаруживаем удивительный факт - миллиардер Карл Айкан владеет всего 1(одним) процентом акций Apple. Конечно, стоимость даже одного процента - сумма огромная, но это же всего одна сотая часть! Где остальное? Вопрос не то, чтобы скрытый, но на примере того же РБК  не только замалчиваемый, но и открыто фальсифицируемый в СМИ.

13 мая 2015, 04:23

По конспироложествуем об очередных кандидатах в члены мирового правительства?

Банки правят миром. А кто правит банками? Сегодня уже не надо доказывать, что пресловутая гегемония США зиждется на монополии печатного станка Федеральной резервной системы (ФРС). Более или менее понятно также, что акционерами ФРС выступают банки мирового калибра. В их число входят не только банки США (банки Уолл-стрит), но и европейские банки Европы (банки Лондонского Сити и некоторых стран континентальной Европы). В период мирового финансового кризиса 2007-2009 гг. ФРС, действуя без огласки, раздала разным банкам кредитов (почти беспроцентных) на сумму свыше 16 трлн. долл. Хозяева денег раздавали кредиты самим себе, то есть тем банкам, которые и являются главными акционерами Федерального резерва. В начале текущего десятилетия под сильным нажимом Конгресса США был проведен частичный аудит ФРС, и летом 2011 года его результаты были обнародованы. Список получателей кредитов и есть список главных акционеров ФРС. Вот они (в скобках указаны суммы полученных кредитов ФРС в миллиардах долларов): Citigroup (2500); Morgan Staley (2004); Merril Lynch (1949); Bank of America (1344); Barclays PLC (868); Bear Sterns (853); Goldman Sachs (814); Royal Bank of Scotland (541); JP Morgan (391); Deutsche Bank (354); Credit Swiss (262); UBS (287); Leman Brothers (183); Bank of Scotland (181); BNP Paribas (175). Примечательно, что целый ряд получателей кредитов ФРС - не американские, а иностранные банки: английские (Barclays PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland); швейцарские (Credit Swiss, UBS); немецкий Deutsche Bank; французский BNP Paribas. Указанные банки получили от Федерального резерва около 2,5 триллиона долларов. Не ошибёмся, если предположим, что это – иностранные акционеры ФРС. Однако если состав главных акционеров Федрезерва более или менее понятен, то этого не скажешь в отношении акционеров тех банков, которые, собственно, и владеют печатным станком ФРС. Кто же является акционерами акционеров Федерального резерва? Прежде всего, рассмотрим ведущие банки США. На сегодняшний день ядро банковской системы США представлено шестью банками. «Большая шестерка» включает Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citigroup. Они занимают первые строчки американских банковских рейтингов по таким показателям, как величина капитала, контролируемых активов, привлеченных депозитов, капитализация, прибыль. Если ранжировать банки по показателю активов, то на первом месте оказывается JP Morgan Chase (2.075 млрд. долл. в конце 2014 г.). По показателю капитализации первое место занимает Wells Fargo (261,7 млрд. долл. осенью 2014 года). Кстати, по этому показателю Wells Fargo вышел на первое место не только в Америке, но и в мире (хотя по активам в США он занимает лишь четвертое место, а в мире даже не входит в первую двадцатку). На официальных сайтах этих банков имеется кое-какая информация об акционерах. Основная часть капитала «большой шёстерки» американских банков находится в руках так называемых институциональных акционеров – разного рода финансовых компаний. Среди них есть и банки, то есть имеет место перекрестное участие в капитале. Количество институциональных инвесторов на начало 2015 года в отдельных банках было следующим: Bank of America – 1410; JP Morgan Chase – 1795; Morgan Stanley – 826; Goldman Sachs – 1018; Wells Fargo – 1729; Citigroup – 1247. В каждом из названных банков достаточно четко выделяется группа крупных инвесторов (акционеров). Это те инвесторы (акционеры), которые имеют более 1 процента капитала каждый. Таких акционеров насчитывается, как правило, от 10 до 20. Бросается в глаза, что во всех банках в группе крупных инвесторов фигурируют одни и те же компании и организации. В табл. 1 приведем список таких крупнейших институциональных инвесторов (акционеров). Табл. 1. Источник: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GS+Major+Holders   Кроме обозначенных в таблице институциональных инвесторов в списках акционеров ведущих американских банков присутствуют следующие организации: Capital World Investors, Massachusetts Financial Services, Price (T. Rowe) Associates Inc., Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Dodge & Cox Inc., Invesco Ltd., Franklin Resources, Inc., Bank of New York Mellon Corporation и некоторые другие. Я называю лишь те, которые фигурируют в качестве акционеров хотя бы в двух из шести ведущих банков США. Фигурирующие в финансовой отчетности ведущих американских банков институциональные акционеры – это различные финансовые компании и банки. Отдельный учет ведется в отношении таких акционеров, как физические лица и взаимные фонды. В целом ряде банков Уолл-стрит заметная доля акций принадлежит работникам этих банков. Разумеется, это не рядовые сотрудники, а ведущие менеджеры (впрочем, некоторое символическое количество акций могут иметь и рядовые банковские служащие). Что касается взаимных фондов (mutual funds) (1), то многие из них находятся в сфере влияния все тех же институциональных акционеров, которые названы выше. В качестве примера можно привести список наиболее крупных акционеров американского банка Goldman Sachs, относящихся к категории взаимных фондов (табл. 2). Табл. 2. Источник: finance.yahoo.com По крайней мере три фонда из приведенных в таблице 2 находятся в сфере влияния финансовой корпорации Vanguard Group. Это Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Vanguard 500 Index Fund, Vanguard Institutional Index Fund-Institutional Index Fund. Доля Vanguard Group в акционерном капитале Goldman Sachs – 4,90%. А три взаимных фонда, находящихся в системе этого финансового холдинга, дают дополнительно еще 3,59%. Таким образом, фактически позиции Vanguard Group в банке Goldman Sachs определяются долей не 4,90%, а 8,49%. В ряде банков Уолл-стрит имеется категория индивидуальных акционеров – физических лиц. Как правило, это высшие руководители данного банка, как действующие, так и ушедшие на пенсию. Приведем справку об индивидуальных акционерах банка Goldman Sachs (табл. 3). Табл. 3. Источник: finance.yahoo.com В совокупности указанные в табл. 3 пять физических лиц имеют на руках более 5,5 млн. акций банка Goldman Sachs, что составляет примерно 1,3% всего акционерного капитала банка. Это столько же, сколько акций у такого институционального акционера, как Northern Trust. Кто эти люди? Высшие менеджеры Goldman Sachs. Ллойд Бланкфейн, например, - председатель совета директоров и главный исполнительный директор Goldman Sachs с 31 мая 2006 года. Джон Вайнберг – вице-президент Goldman Sachs с того же времени, одновременно член управляющего комитета и сопредседатель подразделения инвестиционного банкинга (последний пост он оставил в декабре 2014 года). Три других индивидуальных акционера также относятся к категории высшего менеджмента банка Goldman Sachs, причем все являются действующими сотрудниками данного банка. Достаточно ли нескольких процентов участия в акционерном капитале для того, чтобы эффективно управлять банком? Тут следует учесть, по крайней мере, три момента. Во-первых, в ведущих банках США давно уже нет очень крупных акционеров. Формально в этих банках нет ни одного акционера, доля которого была бы выше 10%. Общее число институциональных акционеров (инвесторов) в американских банках колеблется в пределах одной тысячи. Получается, что в среднем на одного институционального акционера приходится примерно 0,1 процента капитала. На самом деле - меньше, поскольку кроме них есть еще взаимные фонды (учитываемые отдельно), а также многие тысячи физических лиц. В ряде банков акциями владеют служащие. В случае банка Goldman Sachs в руках физических лиц находится около 7% акционерного капитала. Наконец, часть акций находятся в свободном обращении на фондовом рынке. С учетом распыления акционерного капитала среди десятков тысяч держателей бумаг владение даже 1 процентом акций банка Уолл-стрит – это очень мощная позиция. Во-вторых, за несколькими (или многими) формально самостоятельными акционерами может стоять один и тот же хозяин - конечный бенефициар. Скажем, хозяева финансового холдинга Vanguard Group участвуют в капитале банка Goldman Sachs и напрямую, и через взаимные фонды, находящиеся в сфере влияния указанного холдинга. Скорее всего, доля Vanguard Group в капитале Goldman Sachs не 4,90% (доля материнской компании) и не 8,49% (доля с учетом трех подконтрольных взаимных фондов), а больше. Нельзя сбрасывать со счетов и акционеров – физических лиц, чей удельный вес намного выше, чем их доля в акционерном капитале, поскольку это высшие менеджеры, поставленные на руководящие должности теми, кого называют «конечными бенефициарами». В-третьих, есть такие акционеры, влияние которых на политику банка превышает их долю в акционерном капитале по той причине, что они владеют так называемыми голосующими акциями. В то же время другие акционеры владеют так называемыми привилегированными акциями. Последние дают их владельцам такую привилегию, как получение фиксированного дивиденда, но при этом лишают их владельца права голосования на собраниях акционеров. Скажем, акционер может иметь долю в капитале банка, равную 5%, но при этом его доля в общем количестве голосов может быть 10, 20 или даже 50%. А привилегия решающего голоса для банков Уолл-стрит может иметь гораздо большее значение, чем привилегия получения гарантированного дохода. Вернемся к табл. 1 в первой части статьи. Она показывает, что почти во всех американских банках главными акционерами являются финансовые холдинги. При этом если названия ведущих банков Уолл-стрит сегодня известны всем, то названия финансовых холдингов, владеющих большими пакетами акций этих банков, говорят о чем-то лишь очень узкому кругу финансистов. А ведь речь идет о тех, кто в конечном счете контролирует банковскую систему США и Федеральную резервную систему. Например, в последнее время довольно часто упоминался инвестиционный фонд Franklin Templeton Investments, который скупил долговые бумаги Украины на 7-8 млрд. долл. и активно участвует в экономическом удушении этой стран. Между тем указанный фонд – дочерняя структура финансового холдинга Franklin Resources Inc., который является акционером банка Citigroup (доля 1,24%) и банка Morgan Stanley (1,40%). Такие финансовые холдинги, как Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation, FMR (Fidelity), Black Rock, Northern Trust, Capital World Investors, Massachusetts Financial Services, Price (T. Rowe) Associates Inc., Dodge & Cox Inc.; Invesco Ltd., Franklin Resources, Inc., АХА, Capital Group Companies, Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO) и еще несколько других не просто участвуют в капитале американских банков, а владеют преимущественно голосующими акциями. Именно эти финансовые компании и осуществляют реальный контроль над банковской системой США. Некоторые аналитики полагают, что акционерное ядро банков Уолл-стрит составляют всего четыре финансовые компании. Другие компании-акционеры либо не относятся к категории ключевых акционеров, либо прямо или через цепочку посредников контролируются все той же «большой четвёркой». В табл. 4 представлена сводная информация о главных акционерах ведущих банков США. Табл. 4. Оценки величины активов, находящихся в управлении финансовых компаний, являющихся акционерами главных банков США, достаточно условны и периодически пересматриваются. В некоторых случаях оценки включают лишь собственные активы компаний, в других случаях – ещё и активы, передаваемые компаниям в трастовое управление. В любом случае величина контролируемых ими активов впечатляет. Осенью 2013 года в списке мировых банков, ранжированных по величине активов, на первом месте находился китайский банк Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) с активами 3,1 трлн. долл. Максимальные активы в банковской системе США на тот момент имел банк Bank of America (2,1 трлн. долл.). За ним следовали такие американские банки, как Citigroup (1,9 трлн. долл.) и Wells Fargo (1,5 трлн. долл.). Примечательно, что триллионными активами финансовые холдинги «большой четвёрки» ворочают при использовании достаточно скромного числа сотрудников. При совокупных активах, равных примерно 15 трлн. долл., персонал «большой четвёрки» не дотягивает до 100 тыс. человек. Для сравнения: численность сотрудников лишь в банке Citigroup составляет около 250 тыс. человек, в Wells Fargo – 280 тыс. человек. В сравнении с финансовыми холдингами «большой четвёрки» банки Уолл-стрит выглядят рабочими лошадками. По показателю контролируемых активов финансовые компании «большой четвёрки» находятся в более тяжелой весовой категории, чем американские банки «большой шестёрки». «Большая четвёрка» финансовых холдингов простирает свои щупальца не только на банковскую систему США, но и на компании других секторов американской и зарубежной экономики. Тут можно вспомнить исследование специалистов Швейцарского технологического института (Цюрих), целью которого было выявить управляющее ядро мировой экономической и финансовой системы. В 2011 году швейцарцы причислили к ядру мировых финансов 1218 компаний и банков по состоянию на начало финансового кризиса (2007 год). Внутри этого конгломерата было выявлено еще более плотное ядро из 147 компаний. По оценкам авторов исследования, это малое ядро контролировало 40% всех корпоративных активов в мире. Компании ядра были швейцарскими исследователями ранжированы. Воспроизведем первую десятку этого рейтинга: 1. Barclays plc 2. Capital Group Companies Inc 3. FMR Corporation 4. AXA 5. State Street Corporation 6. JP Morgan Chase & Co 7. Legal & General Group plc 8. Vanguard Group Inc 9. UBS AG 10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc. Важное обстоятельство: все 10 строчек швейцарского списка занимают организации финансового сектора. Из них четыре – банки, названия которых у всех на слуху (одного из них – Merrill Lynch – уже не существует). Особо отметим американский банк JP Morgan Chase & Co. Это не просто банк, а банковский холдинг, участвующий в капиталах многих других американских банков. Как видно из табл. 1, JP Morgan Chase участвует в капитале всех других банков «большой шестёрки» за исключением банка Goldman Sachs. В банковском мире США есть еще один примечательный банк, который формально не входит в «большую шестёрку», но который невидимо контролирует некоторые из банков «большой шестёрки». Речь идет о банке The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. Указанный банк являлся держателем акций в Citigroup (доля 1,24%), JP Morgan Chase (1,48%), Bank of America (1,25%). А вот шесть строчек швейцарского списка принадлежат финансовых компаниям, редко фигурирующим в открытой печати. Это финансовые холдинги, которые специализируются на приобретении по всему миру пакетов акций компаний разных отраслей экономики. Многие из них учреждают различные инвестиционные, в том числе взаимные, фонды, осуществляют управление активами клиентов на основе договоров траста и т.д. В этом списке мы видим три финансовые компании из «большой четвёрки», отображенной в табл. 4: Vanguard Group Inc, FMR Corporation (Fidelity) и State Street Corporation. Эти финансовые холдинги, а также компания Black Rock (сильно укрепившая свои позиции с 2007 года) и образуют ядро банковской системы США. Примечательно, что «большая четвёрка» очень хорошо представлена и в банковском холдинге JP Morgan Chase: Vanguard Group – 5,46%; State Street Corporation – 4,71%; FMR Corporation (Fidelity) – 3,48%; Black Rock – 2,75%. Другой из названных выше банковских холдингов – The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation – контролируется тремя финансовыми компаниями «большой четвёрки»: Vanguard Group – 5,15%; State Street Corporation – 4,72%; FMR Corporation (Fidelity) Black Rock – 2,62%. После того как мы выявили управляющее ядро банковской системы США, состоящее из небольшого количества финансовых холдингов, возникает ряд новых вопросов. Кто является владельцами и конечными бенефициарами этих финансовых холдингов? Как далеко распространяется влияние этих финансовых холдингов в отраслевом и географическом отношениях? Можно ли утверждать, что подход к объяснению происходящего в сфере мировых финансов на основе концепции «борьбы кланов Ротшильдов и Рокфеллеров» устарел? Однако это уже тема другого разговора. (1) Взаимный фонд (ВФ), или фонд взаимных инвестиций  - это портфель акций, приобретённых профессиональными финансистами на вложения многих тысяч мелких вкладчиков. К началу XXI века в США действовало несколько тысяч взаимных фонов. К 2000 году в рамках взаимных фондов было открыто 164, 1 млн. счетов, то есть около двух на семью.

07 марта 2013, 13:57

На рынке "мусорных" бондов зреет обвал

Портфельные менеджеры делают ставку на снижение "мусорных" облигаций. Денежные потоки в последнее время активно поступают в фонды ETF, которые шортят высокодоходные облигации.Сейчас ставки против высокодоходных облигаций достигли максимума за последние 5 лет, а значит, вполне возможно, что на этом сегменте рынка назревают серьезные распродажи, пишет Financial Times.Короткие позиции по ETF от BlackRock и State Street, инвестирующие в "мусорные облигации", за последние несколько недель росли стремительными темпами и достигли самого высокого уровня с октября 2007 года.За последние несколько лет инвесторы привыкли брать на себя риск инвестиций в наименее надежные облигации, причем предпочитают делать это через ETF, так как в этом варианте издержки минимальны. Немаловажная причина выбора "мусорных" облигаций - доходность. В условиях нулевых процентных ставок вложения в надежные активы не приносят желаемого дохода.Спрос на такого рода инструменты привел к снижению доходностей по ним до исторических минимумов. Впрочем, спред с американскими казначейскими облигациями, по историческим меркам, не показал такого сужения.