Michael Burry è un leggendario investitore americano di quaranta anni che ha fondato e diretto il fondo hedge
Scion Capital LLC dal 2000 al 2008 quando lo chiuse ai capitali esterni dopo aver assicurato un rendimento di quasi il +500% in poco più di otto anni. Burry anticipò con successo lo scoppio della bolla internet e la crisi dei mutui subprime. Alfa o beta? gli ha dedicato un post quando poco più di un anno fa scrisse un accorato articolo accusando Alan Greenspan e la Fed di non aver agito per tempo impedendo la crisi finanziaria e le conseguenze catastrofiche che ancora oggi condizionano i mercati. Bloomberg TV gli ha dedicato un documentario nella serie Bloomberg Risk Takers che vi raccomando e che potete vedere qui sotto:
martedì 30 agosto 2011
domenica 28 agosto 2011
Aggiornamento al 26 agosto 2011
La settimana appena conclusa ha visto un rimbalzo degli asset più rischiosi (più modesto in Europa piuttosto che negli U.S.A. o rispetto alle materie prime). Hanno chiuso in negativo solamente le obbligazioni trentennali dell'eurozona e l'indice immobiliare.
Asset | rendimento settimanale | rendimento dal 31.12.2010 |
Euro Government Bond 30yr | -1,11% | 4,49% |
Eur/USD | 0,72% | 8,63% |
Ftse EPRA/NAREIT Global | -0,43% | -9,52% |
CRB | 1,93% | -7,27% |
S&P500 | 4,00% | -13,87% |
EuroStoxx | 1,41% | -20,96% |
Non ci sono variazioni nella classifica degli asset: la strategia top2 continua dunque a suddividere il capitale equipesando l'indice Euro Government Bond 30yr e il cambio euro/dollaro. La top3 suddivide il capitale in tre parti eguali: per 2/3 investe nella top2 mentre un terzo del capitale è mantenuto in liquidità.
|
Etichette:
asset allocation
venerdì 26 agosto 2011
Un margine di sicurezza del 30%
È quello che ha spuntato Warren Buffet per il suo investimento in Bank of America. Nell'articolo qui sotto trovate i dettagli della valutazione:
How Much Did Warren Buffett Pay For BofA Anyway? « Dealbreaker: Wall Street Insider – Financial News, Headlines, Commentary and Analysis – Hedge Funds, Private Equity, Banks
How Much Did Warren Buffett Pay For BofA Anyway? « Dealbreaker: Wall Street Insider – Financial News, Headlines, Commentary and Analysis – Hedge Funds, Private Equity, Banks
Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4
Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4
Etichette:
banche,
value investing,
Warren Buffett
mercoledì 24 agosto 2011
Un anno difficile...
Se ne occupa l'Economist nell'ultimo numero con un articolo giustamente critico dei risultati:
Hedge funds first disappointed investors en masse in 2008, when the average fund fell by 19%. Since then they have struggled to beat the market (see chart). This year performance has continued to be lacklustre. The hedge-fund industry needs to produce outsize returns for the rest of 2011 if it is to restore its reputation.
La volatilità delle ultime settimane sembra abbia inferto ulteriori colpi a molti fondi, compresi alcuni casi celebri:
Some long-short equity funds fell by as much as 15%. Even John Paulson, an acclaimed hedge-fund manager who made billions betting against the housing bubble, has suffered losses. His leveraged flagship fund, Advantage Plus, was down by 31% for the year on August 5th (...)
August is on track to be one of hedge funds’ worst months ever. The effects will be felt most by some of the weakest funds, many of which need a quarter or two of good performance to restore the morale of their investors and traders. Should they continue to underwhelm in the coming months, investors are likely to withdraw their money. That could force some smaller funds to be wound down.
Others will close before investors have the chance to desert them. Some funds have been hanging on since 2008, trying to claw their way back to their peaks, or “high-water marks”, at which point they can once again earn lucrative performance fees. But as many as 89% of hedge funds may have still been under their 2006 and 2007 high-water marks in June, according to PerTrac, a data aggregator. Given their high costs, most have been barely surviving on management fees from investors, which are usually around 2% of assets.
Secondo molti la cura dimagrante che l'industria subirà potrebbe avere degli aspetti positivi: la crisi del 2008 portò a una riduzione del 10% del numero di fondi, ma nell'ultimo biennio si è assistito a una ripresa e gli asset under management superano oggi i 2000 miliardi di dollari.
Nel rapporto qui sotto di HSBC Private Bank trovate le classifiche dei 20 migliori e peggiori fondi degli ultimi 3 anni.
HedgeWeekly2011_No34
Etichette:
hedge funds
lunedì 22 agosto 2011
Aggiornamento del portafoglio Benjamin Graham
Con tre settimane di ritardo ribilanciamo il porafoglio Benjamin Graham descritto in questo post e già ribilanciato il 25 febbraio, il 31 marzo , il 29 aprile, il 30 maggio e il primo luglio.
Il crollo degli indici si è fatto sentire anche sulla selezione dei titoli: secondo lo screener del Nasdaq la composizione aggiornata con i prezzi i chiusura di venerdì 19 agosto vede l'aumento del numero dei titoli in portafoglio da 13 a ben 24 (il formato dell'output dello screener è un po' cambiato):
Qui sotto potete vedere in un grafico il rendimento del portafoglio dal 31 dicembre 2010 a oggi, confrontato con quello dell'indice S&P500 (in azzurro). Il valore in dollari USA del portafoglio è pari a 8960,5 USD con un rendimento totale dalla data di creazione (31 dicembre 2010) di -1062 dollari pari al
-10.5%, in linea con il rendimento annuale dell'indice di riferimento. Il portafoglio ha tenuto meglio
dell'indice nell'ultimo mese e mezzo di turbolenza, perdendo poco più del 10% contro il -17% dell'indice.
Ecco la composizione attuale del portafoglio, alla quale si aggiungono 136 dollari in cash:
Il crollo degli indici si è fatto sentire anche sulla selezione dei titoli: secondo lo screener del Nasdaq la composizione aggiornata con i prezzi i chiusura di venerdì 19 agosto vede l'aumento del numero dei titoli in portafoglio da 13 a ben 24 (il formato dell'output dello screener è un po' cambiato):
Value Investor Either Interest LevelBased on our analysis of the book by Benjamin Graham | ||||||||||
Guru(s) Strong | Guru(s) Some | Symbol | Company | Previous Close | Mkt Value $(Mil) | Rel. Strength | P/E | P/E/G | Proj P/E 12 mo. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | ACET | ACETO CORPORATION | 5.33 | 142 | 37 | 14.3 | 179.5 | 11.59 |
1 | 1 | ALG | ALAMO GROUP, INC. | 21.35 | 254 | 53 | 9.51 | 10.36 | |
1 | 1 | AEO | AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS | 11.33 | 2208 | 35 | 12.91 | -16.2 | 12.02 |
2 | 0 | AMGN | AMGEN, INC. | 51.44 | 47535 | 46 | 10.69 | 2.27 | 9.89 |
1 | 0 | BNGPY | BENETTON GROUP SPA (ADR) | 12.75 | 1182 | 8.19 | -33.3 | ||
1 | 1 | BRC | BRADY CORPORATION | 25.22 | 1332 | 43 | 13.42 | 26.36 | 11.54 |
1 | 1 | CHEUY | CHEUNG KONG (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (ADR) | 12.94 | 30895 | 4.88 | 133.88 | ||
1 | 0 | CSR | CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECH. INC. | 5.96 | 535 | 69 | 8.28 | -32.82 | 6.01 |
1 | 1 | CTRN | CITI TRENDS, INC. | 11.11 | 166 | 11 | 14.62 | -53.66 | 28.99 |
2 | 0 | CDEVY | CITY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (ADR) | 8.09 | 7593 | 9.97 | 32.86 | 14.19 | |
1 | 1 | CW | CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. | 27.09 | 1263 | 43 | 10.64 | 20.65 | 10.12 |
3 | 0 | FRX | FOREST LABORATORIES, INC. | 33.18 | 9110 | 76 | 8.07 | 131.8 | 8.82 |
1 | 1 | FSTR | L.B. FOSTER COMPANY | 21.75 | 224 | 25 | 11.41 | 10.33 | 10.56 |
2 | 1 | LHCG | LHC GROUP, INC. | 18 | 338 | 31 | 7.8 | -10.06 | 8.29 |
2 | 1 | LPH | LONGWEI PETROLEUM INVESTMENT HOLD LTD | 1.29 | 130 | 16 | 2.04 | 1140 | 1.98 |
1 | 1 | MKTAY | MAKITA CORPORATION (ADR) | 37.85 | 5471 | 81 | 11.99 | 44.75 | |
1 | 1 | DCM | NTT DOCOMO, INC. (ADR) | 18.37 | 80835 | 67 | 11.53 | 3.88 | 12.04 |
2 | 2 | PLPC | PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY | 48.35 | 254 | 88 | 8.32 | 28.64 | |
1 | 1 | RBC | REGAL-BELOIT CORPORATION | 50.96 | 1971 | 35 | 13.93 | -2.87 | 11.65 |
1 | 1 | RS | RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM | 37.45 | 2804 | 43 | 10.05 | 14.97 | 8.14 |
Guru(s) Strong | Guru(s) Some | Symbol | Company | Previous Close | Mkt Value $(Mil) | Rel. Strength | P/E | P/E/G | Proj P/E 12 mo. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | SUHJY | SUN HUNG KAI PROPERTIES LIMITED (ADR) | 12.97 | 34347 | 7.48 | 38.08 | 13.65 | |
1 | 2 | THO | THOR INDUSTRIES, INC. | 19.45 | 1086 | 27 | 9.51 | 16.77 | 9.97 |
1 | 1 | UNF | UNIFIRST CORPORATION | 46.59 | 926 | 72 | 12.23 | -2.37 | 12.29 |
1 | 0 | USTR | UNITED STATIONERS INC. | 26.2 | 1164 | 67 | 10.94 | 5.4 | 10.29 |
Qui sotto potete vedere in un grafico il rendimento del portafoglio dal 31 dicembre 2010 a oggi, confrontato con quello dell'indice S&P500 (in azzurro). Il valore in dollari USA del portafoglio è pari a 8960,5 USD con un rendimento totale dalla data di creazione (31 dicembre 2010) di -1062 dollari pari al
dell'indice nell'ultimo mese e mezzo di turbolenza, perdendo poco più del 10% contro il -17% dell'indice.
Ecco la composizione attuale del portafoglio, alla quale si aggiungono 136 dollari in cash:
Equities | Last Price | Quantity | Current Value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.16USD | 330.00 | 382.80USD | ||||||
5.12USD | 72.00 | 368.64USD | ||||||
5.91USD | 63.00 | 372.33USD | ||||||
8.03USD | 46.00 | 369.38USD | ||||||
10.80USD | 34.00 | 367.20USD | ||||||
10.97USD | 33.00 | 362.01USD | ||||||
13.15USD | 29.00 | 381.35USD | ||||||
12.75USD | 29.00 | 369.75USD | ||||||
13.09USD | 28.00 | 366.52USD | ||||||
18.83USD | 21.00 | 395.43USD | ||||||
18.33USD | 20.00 | 366.60USD | ||||||
17.92USD | 20.00 | 358.40USD | ||||||
20.91USD | 18.00 | 376.38USD | ||||||
21.80USD | 17.00 | 370.60USD | ||||||
26.04USD | 15.00 | 390.60USD | ||||||
24.94USD | 14.00 | 349.16USD | ||||||
27.12USD | 13.00 | 352.56USD | ||||||
32.83USD | 11.00 | 361.13USD | ||||||
37.29USD | 10.00 | 372.90USD | ||||||
37.51USD | 10.00 | 375.10USD | ||||||
45.94USD | 8.00 | 367.52USD | ||||||
49.61USD | 7.00 | 347.27USD | ||||||
48.11USD | 7.00 | 336.77USD | ||||||
51.98USD | 7.00 | 363.86USD |
Appuntamento verso la fine di settembre. |
Etichette:
Benjamin Graham,
selezione quantitativa,
value investing
domenica 21 agosto 2011
Aggiornamento al 19 agosto 2011.
Anche questa settimana gli asset più rischiosi hanno chiuso in negativo. In progresso il cambio euro/dollaro e le obbligazioni trentennali dell'eurozona.
Non ci sono variazioni nella classifica degli asset: la strategia top2 continua dunque a suddividere il capitale equipesando l'indice Euro Government Bond 30yr e il cambio euro/dollaro. La top3 suddivide il capitale in tre parti eguali: per 2/3 investe come la top2 mentre un terzo del capitale è mantenuto in liquidità.
Asset | rendimento settimanale | rendimento dal 31.12.2010 |
Euro Government Bond 30yr | 2,58% | 5,66% |
Eur/USD | 1,03% | 7,86% |
Ftse EPRA/NAREIT Global | -0,62% | -9,13% |
CRB | -0,13% | -8,22% |
S&P500 | -5,66% | -17,18% |
EuroStoxx | -6,72% | -22,06% |
Non ci sono variazioni nella classifica degli asset: la strategia top2 continua dunque a suddividere il capitale equipesando l'indice Euro Government Bond 30yr e il cambio euro/dollaro. La top3 suddivide il capitale in tre parti eguali: per 2/3 investe come la top2 mentre un terzo del capitale è mantenuto in liquidità.
|
Etichette:
asset allocation
sabato 20 agosto 2011
Intelligenza artificiale e finanza: i corsi online di Stanford e di Yale
Questo post è un po' fuori tema, i lettori mi perdoneranno.
Il New York Times dedica un articolo al corso di intelligenza artificiale che due professori della Stanford University (privata) insegneranno online gratuitamente (a più di 60000 studenti, ma c'è ancora la possibilità di aggiungersi). Qui trovate il sito web del corso e in questo video trovate qualche informazione in più sulla modalità di svolgimento delle lezioni.
Da alcuni anni i più prestigiosi atenei (prevalentemente privati ma non solo) americani hanno messo online contenuti di qualità altissima:
- il mio sito preferito è academicearth.org che aggrega interi corsi videofilmati prodotti dalle più importanti università americane:
- eccellente è anche l'MIT open courseware che mette a disposizione lezioni filmate e materiale didattico per oltre 2000 corsi dall'economia e la finanza all'antropologia, la matematica e... il tiro con l'arco. Questo ad esempio è il link a un ottimo video-corso di teoria dell'informazione mentre qui trovate gli appunti di un corso introduttivo di macroeconomia.
Una provocazione: qualcuno è in grado di indicarmi un'iniziativa confrontabile non dico in Italia ma almeno in Europa? In Italia non c'è, a dispetto dei nostri ben 11 - dico undici !! - atenei telematici. E non mi si venga a dire che è una questione di fondi perchè produrre contenuti digitali online è davvero poco costoso.
Non sarà forse una questione di mentalità?
Io credo di sì: la lettura dell'articolo di Vincenzo Cerami sul Sole 24 Ore di oggi, dedicato all'orgoglio di essere italiani, sembra confermare la mia tesi: Vi riproduco qui sotto la sua conclusione
"Ho scoperto che combinare un bel niente in Italia è più divertente che combinare un bel niente all'estero"
Il New York Times dedica un articolo al corso di intelligenza artificiale che due professori della Stanford University (privata) insegneranno online gratuitamente (a più di 60000 studenti, ma c'è ancora la possibilità di aggiungersi). Qui trovate il sito web del corso e in questo video trovate qualche informazione in più sulla modalità di svolgimento delle lezioni.
Da alcuni anni i più prestigiosi atenei (prevalentemente privati ma non solo) americani hanno messo online contenuti di qualità altissima:
- il mio sito preferito è academicearth.org che aggrega interi corsi videofilmati prodotti dalle più importanti università americane:
- Berkeley
- Columbia
- Harvard
- Khan Academy
- Maryland
- Michigan
- MIT
- Norwich
- NYU
- Princeton
- Stanford
- UCLA
- UNSW
- USC
- Yale
Una provocazione: qualcuno è in grado di indicarmi un'iniziativa confrontabile non dico in Italia ma almeno in Europa? In Italia non c'è, a dispetto dei nostri ben 11 - dico undici !! - atenei telematici. E non mi si venga a dire che è una questione di fondi perchè produrre contenuti digitali online è davvero poco costoso.
Non sarà forse una questione di mentalità?
Io credo di sì: la lettura dell'articolo di Vincenzo Cerami sul Sole 24 Ore di oggi, dedicato all'orgoglio di essere italiani, sembra confermare la mia tesi: Vi riproduco qui sotto la sua conclusione
"Ho scoperto che combinare un bel niente in Italia è più divertente che combinare un bel niente all'estero"
Etichette:
università
giovedì 18 agosto 2011
13 piccoli indiani? Ma gli USA sono AAAA
Qui potete leggere il report di S&P che annuncia il declassamento del debito USA:
è un chiaro voto di sfiducia nei confronti del Presidente, dei deputati e dei senatori:
More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
· Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon.
· The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
Qui invece trovate un interessante articolo di Felix Salmon che analizza le differenze tra Standard and Poor's and Moody's. Peraltro il principale azionista di Moody's, Warren Buffett, ha dichiarato che gli USA non meritano tre A come rating bensì quattro!
Etichette:
debito sovrano,
economia USA,
rischio politico
mercoledì 17 agosto 2011
Come creare nuovi posti di lavoro?
Il rallentamento dell'economia USA e più in generale di tutti i paesi sviluppati non deve stupire: siamo nell'era del deleveraging e molti studi hanno mostrato come la ripresa economica sia lenta e anemica per molti anni dopo una crisi bancaria e finanziaria. Un editoriale sul New York Times di oggi si chiede come mai le società americane, ricche di liquidità, non impieghino una parte di essa per promuovere la crescita:
Some 25 million people — more than 16 percent of the work force — are looking for full-time work. Companies are hoarding cash while reporting record profits.
As for the government, President Obama’s idea of job creation is extending unemployment insurance, on the one hand, and painting grandiose pictures of far-off “green jobs,” on the other. He is bereft of ideas for creating jobs in the here and now. Meanwhile, the Republicans insist — despite mounds of evidence to the contrary — that more tax cuts would create jobs. By now, most Americans have lost hope that our current government will come up with a viable jobs program. It won’t.
I am coming more and more to think that with the government essentially paralyzed for the foreseeable future, the only way we’re going to get jobs is by turning to actual job creators: business itself. With all their cash, companies shouldn’t be waiting for Congress to give them tax incentives to hire people. They should be trying to jump-start the economy — and fend off another recession — by making investments, and hiring workers, that will lead to renewed prosperity.
Secondo Nocera una delle ragioni che trattengono le compagnie dall'investire e assumere nuova forza lavoro è il timore che gli altri competitors non facciano altrettanto:
There is, of course, another reason corporate executives might be reluctant to sacrifice short-term profits by putting people to work. What if their competitors didn’t go along? Then they would find themselves at a disadvantage. Useem would tackle that by having a credible group like the Business Roundtable leading the charge, rounding up companies that would agree to start hiring.
But Marc Groz, a financial risk expert I’ve gotten to know, has what I think is a more intriguing approach, which he calls a “contingent commitment facility.” “Everyone is waiting for someone else to go first,” he told me the other day. Using his facility, a company would agree to hire X number of new workers. But the commitment would only become binding if certain conditions were met — such as having other companies in the same industry agree to do likewise. Once that happened, all the companies would have to do what they’d promised.
Groz’s idea is new and fresh and untested. It could fail. In other words, it is exactly the kind of out-of-the-box “job creation” idea that our stymied government no longer has the ability to come up with. The ball’s in business’s court now.
C'è una curiosa convergenza tra le tesi del liberal Nocera e le proposte avanzate qualche giorno fa da Mark Cuban, impenditore multimiliardario (secondo Forbes è al 459 posto nella classifica mondiale con un net worth di 2,5 miliardi di dollari), proprietario della squadra NBA Dallas Mavericks e blogger. In un post recente Cuban ha proposto un originale meccanismo di incentivazione per la creazione di nuova occupazione. La sua analisi dell'impasse nel dibattito democratici/repubblicani al riguardo mi sembra perfetta, non sono in grado di dire se l'idea sia praticabile ma così su due piedi non mi sembra una sciocchezza. Ecco cosa scrive Cuban:
I think the first problem to solve is creating jobs.
The Republican/ Tea-Party approach to job creation is to cut taxes. The theory being that more money in the pocket of individuals will cause people to spend more money in the economy thereby creating more jobs. Nope. Not happening. Why ? Because individuals have too much debt. Any money they get goes to pay credit cards, student loans and for the smart and fortunate into savings.
Individuals now have debt = to about 119pct of income vs historical levels of .17pct in the 40s, 55pct in the 50s , 65pct in the 60s and a high of 133pct in 2007). It didn’t create enough jobs to have an impact and it won’t in this environment. They also think the same applied to corporations will translate into more jobs. Nope. That is not the case. Big companies in particular are not cash poor. Whether its re-patriation of cash in foreign countries or lower tax rates, neither lead to the creation of new jobs in this economy. It just leads to more cash in the bank.
So the Democrats are right, we should borrow more money. The Dems are wrong that the government knows how to spend the money. The Republicans/Tea Party are right that we have a spending problem. The Republicans/Tea Party are wrong that cutting taxes will result in more jobs.
So IMHO, creating jobs isn’t about the government spending money on jobs /projects, nor is it about cutting taxes. It’s about taking a page from the technology and common sense world.
How is this for a revolutionary thought: Companies that would create jobs if they had more cash know who they are. Right ? If you own a company and are thinking to yourself “Self, if I could borrow or get an investment into my company I could hire X more people to grow the company/meet demand/release a new product/whatever” So rather than guessing and hoping what might happen, why don’t we let companies self identify themselves ?
And not only should they self-identify themselves as companies, they should be able to bid on Government Loans or even actual equity investments. Call me crazy, but I think we should be playing a game of “I Can Name that Tune in X Notes” re-named and reformatted as “I Can Create X Jobs for Y Amount of Money”
Seriously. Call me crazy (and Im sure many of you will), but there is no reason why we can’t quickly create a federal website that allows existing companies to say to the Federal Government how much money they need and how many jobs they can create for that money and for what duration are they committing to maintain those jobs for the money.
Of course you will have to set some minimum parameters in order to prevent the dreamers, crazies and who knows whats from clogging up the system. I would set those minimums including: The company must be in business for at least 10 years. They must be have at least 100 full time employees. They must do 100mm in revenues. And of course they must be up to date on their taxes and Im sure there are other things to think of as well.
I’m sure I have pissed off everyone who doesn’t qualify. Sorry.
The reality is that for this to work the universe of companies has to be small enough so that the system put in place is not overwhelmed. The companies must be big enough to be able to respond to any required due diligence information. If this is made to work, the qualifications could be reduced to expand the universe of eligible companies.
Who would be the decision makers ? I would set up multiple 5 person regional committees across the country. I’m not quite sure who would pick the members, or what their exact qualifications should be, but I can tell you what I would set as a requirement. People would only be eligible to be on the committee if they had not made a political contribution of any kind directly to a politician or to a PAC of any sort in the last 5 years. This can not be a politically dominated decision process.
The committees would then look at the submissions, starting with the ones that promised the most jobs at the least cost. Then they would do their due diligence about the company and request and make a decision. Yes or No. Equity or Debt. Terms of repayment or ownership (exit or return of capital on par with other equity partners) Then on to the next. Funding would come from short term treasury borrowings. As long as the program had submissions and those submissions resulted in positive returns, the program would continue.
Oh, and one more important element. Transparency. You apply and get your money, the amount of money you got and the jobs you committed to and for how long will be published publicly. Visibility has a way of keeping people honest.
I know this is just a rough idea, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration. Rather than having Dems and Republicans fight ideological battles about job creation, lets get direct. Lets just ask companies to tell us how many jobs they would create and how much they need and see what it all adds up to and go from there
What do you think ?
Qui sotto potete vedere una recente intervista a Cuban tratta dal sito del Wall Street Journal: il personaggio è divertente e ci sono molti spunti interessanti sulla gestione di portafoglio ("buy and hold is a crock of $%#!" and diversification is for idiots) e su come la legislatura attuale relativa alla proprietà intellettuale e ai brevetti stia soffocando la creatività.
Some 25 million people — more than 16 percent of the work force — are looking for full-time work. Companies are hoarding cash while reporting record profits.
As for the government, President Obama’s idea of job creation is extending unemployment insurance, on the one hand, and painting grandiose pictures of far-off “green jobs,” on the other. He is bereft of ideas for creating jobs in the here and now. Meanwhile, the Republicans insist — despite mounds of evidence to the contrary — that more tax cuts would create jobs. By now, most Americans have lost hope that our current government will come up with a viable jobs program. It won’t.
I am coming more and more to think that with the government essentially paralyzed for the foreseeable future, the only way we’re going to get jobs is by turning to actual job creators: business itself. With all their cash, companies shouldn’t be waiting for Congress to give them tax incentives to hire people. They should be trying to jump-start the economy — and fend off another recession — by making investments, and hiring workers, that will lead to renewed prosperity.
Secondo Nocera una delle ragioni che trattengono le compagnie dall'investire e assumere nuova forza lavoro è il timore che gli altri competitors non facciano altrettanto:
There is, of course, another reason corporate executives might be reluctant to sacrifice short-term profits by putting people to work. What if their competitors didn’t go along? Then they would find themselves at a disadvantage. Useem would tackle that by having a credible group like the Business Roundtable leading the charge, rounding up companies that would agree to start hiring.
But Marc Groz, a financial risk expert I’ve gotten to know, has what I think is a more intriguing approach, which he calls a “contingent commitment facility.” “Everyone is waiting for someone else to go first,” he told me the other day. Using his facility, a company would agree to hire X number of new workers. But the commitment would only become binding if certain conditions were met — such as having other companies in the same industry agree to do likewise. Once that happened, all the companies would have to do what they’d promised.
Groz’s idea is new and fresh and untested. It could fail. In other words, it is exactly the kind of out-of-the-box “job creation” idea that our stymied government no longer has the ability to come up with. The ball’s in business’s court now.
C'è una curiosa convergenza tra le tesi del liberal Nocera e le proposte avanzate qualche giorno fa da Mark Cuban, impenditore multimiliardario (secondo Forbes è al 459 posto nella classifica mondiale con un net worth di 2,5 miliardi di dollari), proprietario della squadra NBA Dallas Mavericks e blogger. In un post recente Cuban ha proposto un originale meccanismo di incentivazione per la creazione di nuova occupazione. La sua analisi dell'impasse nel dibattito democratici/repubblicani al riguardo mi sembra perfetta, non sono in grado di dire se l'idea sia praticabile ma così su due piedi non mi sembra una sciocchezza. Ecco cosa scrive Cuban:
I think the first problem to solve is creating jobs.
The Republican/ Tea-Party approach to job creation is to cut taxes. The theory being that more money in the pocket of individuals will cause people to spend more money in the economy thereby creating more jobs. Nope. Not happening. Why ? Because individuals have too much debt. Any money they get goes to pay credit cards, student loans and for the smart and fortunate into savings.
Individuals now have debt = to about 119pct of income vs historical levels of .17pct in the 40s, 55pct in the 50s , 65pct in the 60s and a high of 133pct in 2007). It didn’t create enough jobs to have an impact and it won’t in this environment. They also think the same applied to corporations will translate into more jobs. Nope. That is not the case. Big companies in particular are not cash poor. Whether its re-patriation of cash in foreign countries or lower tax rates, neither lead to the creation of new jobs in this economy. It just leads to more cash in the bank.
So the Democrats are right, we should borrow more money. The Dems are wrong that the government knows how to spend the money. The Republicans/Tea Party are right that we have a spending problem. The Republicans/Tea Party are wrong that cutting taxes will result in more jobs.
So IMHO, creating jobs isn’t about the government spending money on jobs /projects, nor is it about cutting taxes. It’s about taking a page from the technology and common sense world.
How is this for a revolutionary thought: Companies that would create jobs if they had more cash know who they are. Right ? If you own a company and are thinking to yourself “Self, if I could borrow or get an investment into my company I could hire X more people to grow the company/meet demand/release a new product/whatever” So rather than guessing and hoping what might happen, why don’t we let companies self identify themselves ?
And not only should they self-identify themselves as companies, they should be able to bid on Government Loans or even actual equity investments. Call me crazy, but I think we should be playing a game of “I Can Name that Tune in X Notes” re-named and reformatted as “I Can Create X Jobs for Y Amount of Money”
Seriously. Call me crazy (and Im sure many of you will), but there is no reason why we can’t quickly create a federal website that allows existing companies to say to the Federal Government how much money they need and how many jobs they can create for that money and for what duration are they committing to maintain those jobs for the money.
Of course you will have to set some minimum parameters in order to prevent the dreamers, crazies and who knows whats from clogging up the system. I would set those minimums including: The company must be in business for at least 10 years. They must be have at least 100 full time employees. They must do 100mm in revenues. And of course they must be up to date on their taxes and Im sure there are other things to think of as well.
I’m sure I have pissed off everyone who doesn’t qualify. Sorry.
The reality is that for this to work the universe of companies has to be small enough so that the system put in place is not overwhelmed. The companies must be big enough to be able to respond to any required due diligence information. If this is made to work, the qualifications could be reduced to expand the universe of eligible companies.
Who would be the decision makers ? I would set up multiple 5 person regional committees across the country. I’m not quite sure who would pick the members, or what their exact qualifications should be, but I can tell you what I would set as a requirement. People would only be eligible to be on the committee if they had not made a political contribution of any kind directly to a politician or to a PAC of any sort in the last 5 years. This can not be a politically dominated decision process.
The committees would then look at the submissions, starting with the ones that promised the most jobs at the least cost. Then they would do their due diligence about the company and request and make a decision. Yes or No. Equity or Debt. Terms of repayment or ownership (exit or return of capital on par with other equity partners) Then on to the next. Funding would come from short term treasury borrowings. As long as the program had submissions and those submissions resulted in positive returns, the program would continue.
Oh, and one more important element. Transparency. You apply and get your money, the amount of money you got and the jobs you committed to and for how long will be published publicly. Visibility has a way of keeping people honest.
I know this is just a rough idea, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration. Rather than having Dems and Republicans fight ideological battles about job creation, lets get direct. Lets just ask companies to tell us how many jobs they would create and how much they need and see what it all adds up to and go from there
What do you think ?
Qui sotto potete vedere una recente intervista a Cuban tratta dal sito del Wall Street Journal: il personaggio è divertente e ci sono molti spunti interessanti sulla gestione di portafoglio ("buy and hold is a crock of $%#!" and diversification is for idiots) e su come la legislatura attuale relativa alla proprietà intellettuale e ai brevetti stia soffocando la creatività.
Etichette:
disoccupazione U.S.A.,
venture capital
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)