- UID
- 770435
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-6-15
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
先给各位拜个晚年！
之前由于实习出差，公司电脑把CD给屏蔽了，一直请假，木有来发帖......明天还要实习出差一段时间 ...再加上现在主攻T，希望把这个艰巨而神圣的发帖任务交给更加有时间和精力的童鞋~~~愿意接我班的童鞋，与猴哥“铁板神猴”联系即可~
最后，希望大家都能坚持坚持再坚持！
【speed】
【time 1】
Food and Beverage Industry
Why Warren Buffett Loves Ketchup, Plain and Simple
By Roya WolversonFeb. 15, 2013
For many Americans, Warren Buffett isn’t just one of the world’s greatest investors. He’s a folksy grandpa with a mysterious wizard’s touch. Everything about him—his upbringing, employees, travels, personal life, investing style, even his home decor—has been picked over for details about what exactly goes into his pixie dust. (There have been two dozen books published on him in the past year alone).
Naturally, his $28 billion purchase of HJ Heinz with U.S.-Brazilian private equity group 3G Capital (owner of Burger King and a piece of Anheuser-Busch InBev) on Feb. 14 caused a lot of chatter. But the move is no mystery; it’s classic Buffett, and here’s why.
Buffett lauded Heinz for good management and for making “great tasting products.” No surprise that the “Sage of Omaha” is a big burger eater. But that’s hardly enough to sway Buffett the number-cruncher. As market watchers know, he’s considered a value investor—someone who buys companies when they’re cheap—which is a strategy he learned from his Columbia Business School professor Benjamin Graham, author of the geeky classic The Intelligent Investor. He’s also partial to the market’s plain vanilla: low-risk companies with rock-solid balance sheets. In this case, Heinz didn’t come cheap. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and 3G paid a 20% premium for Heinz’s shares, which makes them pricier than those of most packaged foods companies (aside from a few elite brands like Nestle and Hershey). For Buffett, the real value of Heinz was its steady stream of cash and safe strategy.
【251】
【time 2】
Why not buy into other steady goers in the food business like Kraft or ConAgra? In the world of staple products, Kraft has proven too risky for Buffett’s taste. He chastised the company for buying Cadbury in 2010. To free up cash for the purchase, Kraft sold its frozen-pizza business (DiGiorno, Tombstone and Jack’s pizza) to Nestle. Frozen pizzas were a big winner during the recession, but Kraft wanted a bigger piece of fast-growing emerging markets, where Cadbury is a big player. Kraft has since split into two separate businesses, a move that shook investors, and Buffett has sold a big chunk of his holdings.
ConAgra is another relatively risky grower. The company’s $5 billion cash purchase of private-label company Ralcorp in November is a big bet on the growth of private-label products globally (aka the generic brands you hated as a kid because real Lucky Charms are better). But a recent report by SymphonyIRI Group suggests consumers may be heading back to name brands.
Heinz has dabbled in its own riskier plays in the past—for instance, buying into pet food (9 Lives and Kibbles ‘n Bits) and canned tuna (StarKist), businesses it later sold to Del Monte. But recently, the iconic global brand has come back to what it does best: earning a hefty premium for mixing vinegar with tomatoes. There may be some wizardry in the Heinz recipe, but not in the corporate strategy. And that suits a wizard with simple tastes just fine.
【247】
【time 3】
WALL STREET
Mergers and Acquisitions Boom! Is This a Good Sign for the Economy?
By Christopher MatthewsFeb. 15, 20130
Wall Street dealmakers are off to a busy start to 2013, as some of corporate America’s most recognizable names have become involved in multi-billion-dollar mergers and acquisitions. Just yesterday, American Airlines and US Airways announced they would be merging in an $11 billion deal, while private equity firm 3G andWarren Buffett‘s Berkshire Hathaway announced a $28 billion joint acquisition of food conglomerate H.G. Heinz. And these two deals follow hard upon $24.4 billion leveraged buyout of Dell by private equity firm Silver Lake Partners and the firm’s founder, Michael Dell.
Indeed, according to data from Deallogic, U.S. companies have spent $219 billion on mergers and acquisitions so far in 2013, a sharp increase from 2012, when firms spent just $85 billion during the same period. And U.S. firms are on pace to have the biggest year in M&A activity since 2000.
While all this activity will be surely benefit shareholders of acquired firms — as well as lots of Wall Street investment bankers — what does it say about the health of the economy? Since the late 19th century, mergers and acquisitions have tended to come in waves, spurred by the availability of credit, changes in government policy, or bursts of private-sector innovation. Deregulation, for instance, motivated a wave of mergers in the airline industry in the 1970s and the consolidation of the banking industry in the 1990s. But perhaps the most important factor in motivating these bursts of M&A is economic conditions, particularly the strength of the stock market. Mergers in particular are often financed with stock, and high stock values give companies the resources with which to make purchases.
But the stock market has been doing pretty well for a few years now, with the S& 500 up more than 138% since its bear-market lows of 2009. So why are we only now seeing the first glimmer of an M&A boom?
【311】
【time 4】
Surely one reason is that today’s market is heavily fortified by quantitative easing. The Federal Reserve has taken unprecedented action to keep interest rates low in both the short and long term, and those efforts have kept stock prices high despite the weak economy. In other words, given central bank stimulus, a rising stock market isn’t quite the indicator it used to be. We can see this in GDP growth figures as well.
In addition to predicting M&A activity, the stock market is also considered a leading indicator of economic growth, meaning increases in GDP generally follow bull markets. This is because stock prices reflect investors expectations for a company’s future income. A high stock price today represents investors’ belief in big profits tomorrow. Taken in the aggregate, a surging stock market index is a predictor of increases in GDP down the line.
But, just as we’ve seen the link between rising stock prices and M&A severed, the huge gains we’ve seen in stock prices since 2009 have also not been followed by robust economic growth. Again, this is probably because Fed action has done more to promote stock price increases than economic fundamentals. But this is exactly why we should be encouraged by this fast start to M&A activity in 2013, especially if it keeps up in the coming months. It may mean that recent stock market gains are once again reflecting confidence about future profits, and not just central bank stimulus.
What makes this plausible is the fact management won’t seek out — and boards won’t sanction — expensive acquisitions if they’re not confident about future growth. And given the fact that corporate profits have been strong while unemployment remains high and wage growth stagnant means the corporate sector will eventually have to start spending if economy is to recover fully.
So while high profile M&A deals are often times more about CEO empire building than creating real shareholder value, this nascent boom may be a positive sign for the economy nonetheless. It may finally be that rising stock prices are actually telling us something about the real economy around us — and perhaps more important, that corporate leaders are finally feeling frisky once again.
【364】
【time 5】
Career Strategies
Turns Out You Won’t Get Rich Hunting Pythons in Florida’s Swamps
By Brad TuttleFeb. 13, 201312
The Python Challenge sounded like a pretty bad idea. In reality, it was probably worse than most people imagined.
Late last year, the state of Florida announced it would host a first-ever Python Challenge, a month-long contest in which participants are encouraged to patrol public hunting lands and kill non-native species of pythons. It’s been estimated that tens of thousands of these snakes now dwell in Florida’s swamps. The predators can easily reach lengths of 16 feet, and they’ve been blamed for the declining populations of rabbits, foxes, and raccoons.
To get rid of the invasive serpents, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission decided to call on anyone and everyone adventurous (read: crazy) enough to head into the swamps and hunt snakes. The challenge officially kicked off on January 12. According to the Sun Sentinel, at least 1,563 hunters registered for the contest, which promises cash prizes, including $1,500 for most Burmese pythons caught and $1,000 for the longest Burmese python caught.
From the beginning, there have been skeptics. The Miami New Times described the challenge as “an idea straight out of the hormone-addled mind of a 14-year-old who plays too many first-person shooters,” and noted that critics “predicted the only casualties would be weekend warriors knocked out by dehydration and flying shrapnel.” Still, some 1,500 individuals decided the $25 entry fee was worth it, considering the possibility of winning the cash rewards.
Those who envisioned piling up pythons left and right are now sorely disappointed. The vast majority of hunters didn’t catch a single snake. By the time the final count has taken place, it’s believed that a grand total of 50 snakes will have been caught. Python Challenge organizers say they are pleased with the results. “One of the goals we set for this, when we started the project, was to increase awareness of the Burmese pythons and (their impact) on the Everglades ecosystem,” a researcher from the University of Florida, one of the event’s sponsors, said, according to the Daily News.
【335】
【other】
That goal probably wasn’t exactly what the hunters had in mind when they headed out into the swamps, knee-deep in water, machete in hand. “I wanna make some money, man.” That’s the reason a camo-wearing man named Jimmy Ferguson gave to the Miami New Times for why he was wading in the water with his 18-year-old daughter on the challenge’s first day.
Collectively, Ferguson and the rest of the hunters paid in the neighborhood of $39,000 in Python Challenge entry fees. Meanwhile, Florida will pay out just $8,000 in prize money, though organizers do offer suggestions for selling snake skins. Of course, only a tiny portion of participants have any skins to sell.
And why haven’t more snakes been caught? “The reason people aren’t catching that many is they don’t have a clue where to look,” Kenneth L. Krysko, a researcher at the University of Florida Museum of Natural History, told the Sun Sentinel. “Look at all the yahoos coming down here.”
Tales of drunkenness and shenanigans have abounded, including a few reports of Python Challenge “yahoos” taking pot shots at native animals they’re not supposed to be hunting. Another reason given for the skimpy snake count is that participants were not allowed to hunt in Everglades National Park proper, which is believed to be a non-native python hot spot. We’ll all find out who won the Python Challenge prizes on February 16, when an awards ceremony is scheduled. Quite a few hunters already know that they’re not even in the running.
【252】
【obstacle】
Contrived Inequality and Equality-Becker
The media and many intellectuals have greatly criticized the large growth in inequality during past 30 years in countries as different as the United States, China, and Brazil. Yet people in all countries generally accept, and usually admire, differences in incomes and wealth that they believe result from abilities and hard work, and where the work done by the wealthy is considered socially valuable. For example, the great wealth of a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates is little criticized because they were brilliant at what they did, and they added a lot to social value. On the other hand, objections are raised when high incomes and wealth are considered to be undeserved. The distinction between deserving and undeserved wealth is crucial in the degree of acceptance and hostility to inequality.
Government policies that favor some individuals and discriminate against others are the biggest source of contrived inequality. For example, the Russian oligarchs are criticized because much of their wealth came from government favors when Russia privatized many industries after the collapse of Communism, and also from subsequent favors as the Russian government consolidated ownership in natural resource and other industries. Similar government help propelled the Mexican telecommunications giant, Carlos Slim, to become the wealthiest person in the world.
Until fairly recently, all countries simply gave spectrums for telephone services, radio and television transmission, and mineral and energy rights to politically powerful companies. Economists pointed out that this was granting enormous wealth to these companies without getting much in return. Their writings and other pressures finally forced the US and many other (but not all) governments to auction off such valuable and scarce property. Tariffs on goods like sugar and ethanol, and subsidies to the oil and other industries, artificially raise the incomes of capital and workers employed in the protected industries.
In labor markets, China’s sharp restrictions on rural migrants obtaining residency in urban areas has contributed greatly to China’s rapid growth in inequality during the past two decades. Minimum wage laws raise the incomes of low skilled workers who can find jobs, but they lower incomes of equally productive workers who are made unemployed because these laws price these workers out of employment.
I could give many other examples of government creation of undeserved inequality, but governments are not the only source of such inequality. Unions raise the wages of workers in the sectors unionized, but unions also lower the wages of equally productive workers who are forced out of these sectors into lower paying jobs elsewhere. In addition, unions artificially reduce inequality by suppressing earnings of more productive union members, so that the net effect of unions on inequality is not clear. One blatant example of unions suppressing earnings of more productive members is given by the teachers union’s opposition to merit pay for good teachers, even though good teachers have large positive effects on their students.
Private monopolies and cartels tend to raise the wealth of businessmen and workers who gain from the higher prices created by monopolies. The burden of these higher prices is borne by consumers, other businesses, and by the workers who must exit monopolized industries because of the cuts in output that create the higher prices.
Differences in education and other human capital are the cause of much of the earnings inequality within rich countries, such as the US and Japan. The boom in the returns to higher education during most of the past 30 years has widened earnings inequality greatly by sharply increasing the earnings of persons with at least a college education, and earnings also of other highly skilled individuals. Higher earnings of skilled persons is not a problem per se for most people, but they object to the fact that many young men and women with the talent to benefit from higher education are prevented from doing so. Their families and schools do not adequately prepare them for college, and they do not have the family resources that enable them to pay for a college education.
The effects on children of broken families and uninterested parents are considerable, yet much more can be done on other dimensions to reduce the inequality in opportunities to attend college. Preparation in schools attended by poorer children can be improved by increasing competition among schools, by paying very good teachers much more than average teachers, and by getting rid of the bad and uninterested teachers. Student loans might be made more effective by making the amount to be repaid contingent-up to a point- on the incomes of those who are repaying student loans. This would reduce the loan burden to those who turn out to earn relatively little, although this “tax” on high earnings does affect the type of occupations students with large loans choose, and may make student loans less attractive to students planning to go into high earning fields like business or medicine.
The huge earnings and great wealth accumulation of some members of the financial sector are often viewed with suspicion because they are considered more due to luck than to abilities. This suspicion is not universal since the billionaire Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest person in America, is very much admired, even though he made his enormous fortune from investments in companies. The vast wealth of some hedge fund managers, on the other hand, is often criticized in part because it is assumed to be due to good luck rather than great skill. Usually overlooked is the role of these funds and other investors in arbitraging prices and returns in different sectors. Hostility to high earnings in the financial sector has greatly increased during past few years because of the role of banks and other financial institutions (along with governments and other culprits) in generating the financial crisis that so damaged the world economy.
Since Rousseau, many intellectuals have been opposed to inequality per se. Most people, however, distinguish deserving from undeserving inequality. Clearly, much of the income and wealth inequality in any country would be considered deserving because it results from greater abilities and dedication. Yet a considerable fraction of the inequality in most countries would be considered undeserving. Governments are expected to reduce these obstacles, but unfortunately, governments also create many of the undeserved sources of inequality.
【1039】 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-2-15 22:17:55
收藏
收藏
