Adquisición 获得: Google descent into robotics

Google is investing in robotics companies by purchasing Boston dynamics.

In December, Google bought Boston Dynamics, which developed a number of robots said to be inspired by animals, for an undisclosed sum. The news broke shortly after Amazon made headlines over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend with its own robotic moonshot project, Prime Air drone delivery.

But Google is not the only one thought to have been interested in Titan. Reports swirled as recently as a few weeks ago that Facebook was interested in the private company, founded in 2012, as well.


Oro en la cima del mundo: World’s Top Banks.


                                     World Ranking:

1 Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Limited, China
2 Deutsche Bank AG, Germany
3 BNP Paribas SA, France
4 Crédit Agricole SA, France
5 Barclays Bank PLC, UK
6 China Construction Bank Corporation, China
7 Agricultural Bank of China Limited, China
8 JAPAN POST BANK Co Ltd., Japan
9 The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, UK
10 Bank of China Limited, China
11 The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Japan
12 JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, USA
13 Banco Santander SA, Spain
14 Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Japan
15 Société Générale, France
16 Lloyds TSB Bank plc, UK
17 BPCE, France
18 Bank of America NA, USA
19 UBS AG, Switzerland
22 Wells Fargo Bank NA, USA
21 Citibank NA, USA
22  HSBC Bank plc, UK
23 UniCredit SpA, Italy
24 China Development Bank Corporation, China
25 Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, France
26 ING Bank NV, Netherlands
27 Rabobank Nederland, Netherlands
28 Credit Suisse AG, Switzerland
29 Bank of Scotland plc, UK
30 Nordea Bank AB (publ), Sweden
31 Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, Italy
32 Mizuho Bank Ltd , Japan



In 2012, the Bank continued to advance the transformation of corporate banking, kept optimizing the business structure and effectively adapted itself to the interest rate marketization, to realize sustainable development of corporate banking. The Bank introduced all-product marketing and comprehensive financial services and promoted interaction between commercial banking and investment banking, so as to satisfy customers’ diversified financial needs. It also enhanced business innovation and boosted the development of financial assets services such as asset management, entrusted management, agency trade, underwriting and consultancy, agency sales, etc. Relying on the global service network and the integrated technological platform of domestic and overseas operations, the Bank accelerated the development of global cash management and cross-border RMB business, and enhanced its global service capability and its brand’s international infl uence. Through innovation of the marketing system, the Bank provided differentiated services for customers at different tiers, enhanced the marketing and service quality for key customers, and expanded the customer base by winning over more small and medium enterprise (SME) customers.

The Bank was awarded the “Best Corporate Bank in China” by Global Finance. At the end of 2012, the Bank had 4.38 million corporate customers, representing an increase of 270 thousand customers from the end of the previous year; among them, 143 thousand corporate customers had loan balances with the Bank, representing an increase of 16 thousand customers. According to statistics from PBC, at the end of 2012, the Bank ranked first in the banking industry in terms of corporate loans and corporate deposits, with a market share of 11.8% and 12.6%, respectively.


En 2012 , el Banco continuó avanzando la transformación de la banca corporativa , mantuvo la optimización de la estructura de negocios y efectivamente se adaptó a la mercantilización de tasa de interés , para hacer realidad el desarrollo sostenible de la banca corporativa . El Banco introdujo la comercialización de todos los productos y servicios financieros integrales y promovió la interacción entre la banca comercial y la banca de inversión , con el fin de satisfacer las necesidades financieras diversificadas de los clientes. También ha mejorado la innovación empresarial e impulsó el desarrollo de servicios de activos financieros , como la gestión de activos, gestión encomendada , el comercio de agencia, aseguramiento y consultoría , las ventas de las agencias , etc que utilizan la red de servicio global y la plataforma tecnológica integrada de las operaciones nacionales y extranjeros , el Banco aceleró el desarrollo de la gestión de tesorería global y negocios en RMB transfronteriza, y ha mejorado su capacidad de servicio global y infl uencia internacional de su marca. A través de la innovación del sistema de comercialización , el Banco proporcionó servicios diferenciados para los clientes en los diferentes niveles , mejora la comercialización y el servicio de calidad a los clientes clave , y se amplió la base de clientes , al ganar más de (PYME ) de los clientes de pequeñas y medianas empresas más .

El Banco fue galardonado con el ” Mejor Banco Corporativo en China” por Global Finance . A finales de 2012 , el Banco tenía 4,38 millones de clientes corporativos , lo que representa un aumento de 270 mil clientes de la final del año anterior , entre ellas , 143.000 clientes corporativos tenían saldos de préstamos con el Banco , lo que representa un aumento de 16 mil clientes . Según las estadísticas del PBC , a finales de 2012 , el Banco ocupó el primer lugar en la industria de la banca en cuanto a créditos corporativos y los depósitos corporativos , con una cuota de mercado del 11,8 % y 12,6 % , respectivamente.

El costo de la guerra: Cost of war


In short, far from “de-escalating,” the Crisis in Crimea is starting to look permanent — and indeed, may expand beyond the borders of Crimea. This bad news helped stocks on the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average suffer their worst declines in nearly two months — and this could be only the beginning.

Two weeks ago, at the start of this crisis, we ran down five ways the conflict between Ukraine and Russia could affect your portfolio. Two weeks into the crisis, with new facts in hand, we’re back to update that advice with five more predictions. Here goes.

Trade between Russia and the U.S. passed $38 billion in value last year, and much of that could be at risk if the Obama administration follows through on threats to punish Russia’s land-grab in Crimea with trade sanctions. Even worse for investors, Russia has promised to retaliate against such sanctions, potentially hurting U.S. companies that have made direct investments in the country.

Major U.S. manufacturers such as Ford (NYSE: F  ) and General Motors have invested more than $10 billion directly in Russia. Ford, for example, manufactures Focus and Mondeo automobiles at its plant in St. Petersburg and is in the process of building a new $274 million engine plant in the Russian region of Tatarstan. GM set up its first factory in St. Pete as well — a $300 million, 98,000-cars-annually assembly plant — and up until this crisis began, it was expanding its joint venture with AvtoVAZ in Togliatti.

One of the likeliest targets for U.S. trade sanctions would be cutting ties with Russian banks in an attempt to constrict Russia’s access to foreign capital. This holds immediate implications for banking giant Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) . The U.S. bank with the most exposure to the country, Citigroup serves more than 3,000 institutional customers in Russia, has a retail customer base of 1 million and operates 50 bank branches in a dozen Russian cities. Citigroup earns about $300 million annually in Russia — for now.

Oil and gas
Closer to Crimea proper, a consortium of companies including Italian energy producer Eni(NYSE: E  ) recently signed a $4 billion investment deal with Ukraine to develop underwater gas fields off the western coast of Crimea. A “production sharing agreement,” this deal was made with the Ukrainian government as a party, however. If Crimea is leaving Ukraine, the legal validity of the deal could be questioned — and Eni could lose its 50% stake in the project.

Steel — again
(NYSE: MT  ) is a bit trickier. Last time we looked at the stock, we mentioned how its operations might be disrupted by conflict in eastern Ukraine, hurting global steel supplies and driving up prices. Instead — the opposite may happen. Last week, Arcelor warned that while it’s still producing plenty of steel, steel usage in Ukraine has dropped like a rock, as companies delay construction projects to see how the conflict with Russia plays out.

Result: Arcelor’s steel is being diverted to international markets, potentially increasing supply and driving prices down. (Curiouser and curiouser, indeed.)

Military suppliers
Finally, we turn to the defense contractors. This week, Ukrainian leaders made impassioned pleas to the U.S. for military assistance. Asked to supply guns and ammo, the Obama administration agreed only to send food aid, fearing that sending weapons to Ukraine might offend Russia.

But as we saw with Arcelor, this situation is fluid. The U.S. has a history of providing surplus weaponry to bolster the militaries of allied nations — offering two dozen old F-16 fighter jets to Romania in 2010, for example, and sending 400 used M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks to Greece in 2011 — all free of charge.

But “free” isn’t always what it seems. In the F-16 deal, for example, Romania was expected to spend $1.3 billion upgrading its fighter jets to modern standards. That’s money in the bank forLockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT  ) . Potentially, if Russia fails to back down in Ukraine, we could soon see Congress approve similar sales of military hardware — to Ukraine, to Georgia (which has had issues with Russia in the past), and to other border states such as Estonia or Latvia, which also wish to strengthen their defenses.

The risk to investors? Shorting defense contractors in the middle of a new cold war.



En resumen , lejos de ” de- escalada “, la crisis en Crimea está empezando a parecer permanente – y, de hecho , puede expandirse más allá de las fronteras de Crimea. Esta mala noticia ayudó a las poblaciones en el S & P 500 y el Dow Jones Industrial Average sufren sus peores caídas en casi dos meses – y esto podría ser sólo el comienzo.

Hace dos semanas , en el inicio de esta crisis , nos encontramos a cinco formas en que el conflicto entre Ucrania y Rusia podría afectar a su cartera. Dos semanas después de la crisis, con nuevos hechos en la mano , estamos de vuelta para actualizar ese consejo con cinco predicciones más . Aquí va .

El comercio entre Rusia y los EE.UU. aprobó $ 38 mil millones en valor el año pasado, y gran parte de que podría estar en riesgo si el gobierno de Obama sigue a través de amenazas de castigar a Rusia – apropiación de tierras en Crimea con sanciones comerciales. Peor aún para los inversores , Rusia ha prometido tomar represalias en contra de tales sanciones , lo que podría lastimar a las empresas estadounidenses que han realizado inversiones directas en el país.

Los principales fabricantes estadounidenses como Ford ( NYSE : F ) y General Motors han invertido más de $ 10 mil millones directamente en Rusia. Ford , por ejemplo , fabrica Focus y Mondeo automóviles en su planta de San Petersburgo y está en el proceso de construcción de un nuevo $ 274 millones la planta de motores en la región rusa de Tatarstán. GM estableció su primera fábrica en St. Pete , así – una planta de ensamblaje de $ 300.000.000 98000 -cars- anualmente – y hasta comenzó esta crisis, se estaba expandiendo su empresa conjunta con AvtoVAZ en Togliatti .

Uno de los objetivos más probables para las sanciones comerciales de Estados Unidos estaría cortando los lazos con los bancos rusos en un intento de constreñir el acceso de Rusia al capital extranjero. Esto tiene implicaciones inmediatas para el gigante bancario Citigroup ( NYSE : C) . El banco de los EE.UU. con la mayor exposición al país , Citigroup sirve a más de 3.000 clientes institucionales en Rusia , tiene una base de clientes al por menor de 1 millón y opera 50 sucursales bancarias en una docena de ciudades rusas. Citigroup gana alrededor de $ 300 millones anuales en Rusia – por ahora.

Petróleo y gas
Más cerca de Crimea adecuada , un consorcio de compañías como productor de energía italiana Eni ( NYSE: E) ha firmado recientemente un acuerdo de $ 4 mil millones de inversión con Ucrania para desarrollar campos de gas bajo el agua frente a la costa occidental de la península de Crimea. Un “acuerdo de reparto de la producción , ” este acuerdo se hizo sin embargo con el gobierno de Ucrania como partido, . Si Crimea está dejando de Ucrania , la validez jurídica del acuerdo podría ser cuestionada – y Eni podría perder su participación del 50 % en el proyecto .

Acero – de nuevo
ArcelorMittal ( NYSE : MT) es un poco más complicado . La última vez que nos fijamos en la acción, le mencionó que sus operaciones podrían verse afectados por el conflicto en el este de Ucrania , afectando a los suministros de acero a nivel mundial y aumentando los precios . En lugar de ello – podría ocurrir lo contrario . La semana pasada, Arcelor advirtió que mientras aún está produciendo un montón de acero , el uso de acero en Ucrania ha caído como una roca, ya que las empresas retrasen los proyectos de construcción para ver cómo el conflicto con Rusia se desarrolla.

Resultado : acero de Arcelor se está desviando a los mercados internacionales , lo que podría aumentar la oferta y bajar los precios . ( Curioso y más curioso , por cierto. )

proveedores militares
Por último , nos volvemos a los contratistas de defensa . Esta semana , los líderes ucranianos hicieron súplicas apasionadas a los EE.UU. para la asistencia militar. Preguntado suministrar armas de fuego y munición, el gobierno de Obama estuvo de acuerdo sólo para enviar ayuda alimentaria , por temor a que el envío de armas a Ucrania podría ofender a Rusia.

Pero como hemos visto con Arcelor , esta situación es fluida . Los EE.UU. tiene una historia de proporcionar excedentes de armamento para reforzar los ejércitos de las naciones aliadas – ofreciendo dos docenas de antiguos F- 16 aviones de combate a Rumania en 2010, por ejemplo, y el envío de 400 carros de combate M1A1 Abrams utilizado a Grecia en el año 2011 – todos de forma gratuita .

Pero el “libre ” no es siempre lo que parece . En el acuerdo de F- 16, por ejemplo , se espera que Rumania gastar $ 1.3 mil millones de actualizar sus aviones de combate a los estándares modernos . Eso es dinero en el banco forLockheed Martin ( NYSE : LMT ) . Potencialmente, si Rusia no puede dar marcha atrás en Ucrania , pronto podríamos ver que el Congreso apruebe las ventas similares de equipos militares – a Ucrania, en Georgia (que ha tenido problemas con Rusia en el pasado) , y para otros estados fronterizos como Estonia o Letonia, que también desean fortalecer sus defensas.

El riesgo para los inversores? El cortocircuito de los contratistas de defensa en el medio de una nueva guerra fría.



Habilidades de hacer oro: Investing strategies

Miami City Buildings at Night

Hedge Fund Strategy – Equity Long-Short

An equity long-short strategy is an investing strategy, used primarily by hedge funds, that involves taking long positions in stocks that are expected to increase in value and short positions in stocks that are expected to decrease in value.

You may know that taking a long position in a stock simply means buying it: If the stock increases in value, you will make money. On the other hand, taking a short position in a stock means borrowing a stock you don’t own (usually from your broker), selling it, then hoping it declines in value, at which time you can buy it back at a lower price than you paid for it and return the borrowed shares.

Hedge funds using equity long-short strategies simply do this on a grander scale. At its most basic level, an equity long-short strategy consists of buying an undervalued stock and shorting an overvalued stock. Ideally, the long position will increase in value, and the short position will decline in value. If this happens, and the positions are of equal size, the hedge fund will benefit. That said, the strategy will work even if the long position declines in value, provided that the long position outperforms the short position. Thus, the goal of any equity long-short strategy is to minimize exposure to the market in general, and profit from a change in the difference, or spread, between two stocks.

That may sound complicated, so let’s look at a hypothetical example. Let’s say a hedge fund takes a $1 million long position in Pfizer and a $1 million short position in Wyeth, both large pharmaceutical companies. With these positions, any event that causes all pharmaceutical stocks to fall will lead to a loss on the Pfizer position and a profit on the Wyeth position. Similarly, an event that causes both stocks to rise will have little effect, since the positions balance each other out. So, the market risk is minimal. Why, then, would a portfolio manager take such a position? Because he or she thinks Pfizer will perform better than Wyeth.

Equity long-short strategies such as the one described, which hold equal dollar amounts of long and short positions, are called market neutral strategies. But not all equity long-short strategies are market neutral. Some hedge fund managers will maintain a long bias, as is the case with so-called “130/30” strategies. With these strategies, hedge funds have 130% exposure to long positions and 30% exposure to short positions. Other structures are also used, such as 120% long and 20% short. (Few hedge funds have a long-term short bias, since the equity markets tend to move up over time.)

Equity long-short managers can also be distinguished by the geographic market in which they invest, the sector in which they invest (financial, health care or technology, for example) or their investment style (value or quantitative, for example). Buying and selling two related stocks—for example, two stocks in the same region or industry—is called a “paired trade” model. It may limit risk to a specific subset of the market instead of the market in general.

Equity long-short strategies have been used by sophisticated investors, such as institutions, for years. They became increasingly popular among individual investors as traditional strategies struggled in the most recent bear market, highlighting the need for investors to consider expanding their portfolios into innovative financial solutions.

Equity long-short strategies are not without risks. These strategies have all the generic hedge fund risks: For example, hedge funds are typically not as liquid as mutual funds, meaning it is more difficult to sell shares; the strategies they use could lead to significant losses; and they can have high fees. Additionally, equity long-short strategies have some unique risks. The main one is that the portfolio manager must correctly predict the relative performance of two stocks, which can be difficult. Another risk results from what is referred to in the industry as “beta mismatch.” While this is more complicated that we can explain in detail here, essentially, it means that

when the stock market declines sharply, long positions could lose more than short positions.

In summary, equity long-short strategies may help increase returns in difficult market environments, but also involve some risk. As a result, investors considering these strategies may want to ensure that their hedge funds follow strict rules to evaluate market risks and find good investment opportunities.


Hedge Fund Strategy – Capital a Largo Corto

Una estrategia de largo-corto equidad es una estrategia de inversión, utilizado principalmente por los fondos de cobertura, que consiste en tomar posiciones largas en acciones que se espera que aumente en posiciones de valor y cortas en las poblaciones que se espera que disminuya su valor.

Usted puede saber que tomar una posición larga en una acción significa simplemente comprarlo: si los aumentos en las existencias en el valor, que van a ganar dinero. Por otra parte, tomando una posición corta en una acción significa pedir prestado una acción que usted no es dueño (por lo general de su corredor), la venta, entonces la esperanza de que declina en valor, momento en el que pueda volver a comprar a un precio inferior de lo que pagó por ella y regresar las acciones prestadas.

Los fondos de cobertura utilizando la equidad estrategias long-short simplemente hacen esto en una escala mayor . En su nivel más básico, un patrimonio estrategia a largo corto consiste en la compra de una acción infravalorada y cortocircuito una acción sobrevaluada . Lo ideal sería que la posición larga se incrementará en el valor, y la posición corta disminuirá en valor. Si esto sucede , y las posiciones son de igual tamaño, el fondo de cobertura se beneficiará . Dicho esto, la estrategia funcionará incluso si la posición larga disminuye en valor, siempre que la posición larga supera a la posición corta . Por lo tanto , el objetivo de cualquier estrategia a largo corto equidad es reducir al mínimo la exposición al mercado en general, y el beneficio de un cambio en la diferencia , o spread , entre dos poblaciones.


Esto puede sonar complicado , así que vamos a ver un ejemplo hipotético. Digamos que un fondo de cobertura toma una posición larga $ 1000000 en Pfizer y una posición corta $ 1 millón en Wyeth, tanto las grandes empresas farmacéuticas. Con estas posiciones, cualquier evento que hace que todas las acciones farmacéuticas bajen dará lugar a una pérdida en la posición Pfizer y una ganancia en la posición de Wyeth. Del mismo modo, un evento que causa ambas poblaciones en aumento tendrá poco efecto , ya que las posiciones se equilibran entre sí . Por lo tanto, el riesgo de mercado es mínimo. ¿Por qué , entonces, sería un gestor de cartera tomar una posición? Debido a que él o ella piensa que Pfizer obtendrá mejores resultados que Wyeth.

Equidad estrategias de largo-corto , como el descrito , que mantenga la misma cantidad en dólares de las posiciones largas y cortas , se llaman estrategias neutrales de mercado. Pero no todos los de renta variable estrategias long-short son de mercado neutral. Algunos gestores de fondos de cobertura se mantienen un sesgo mucho tiempo, como es el caso de los llamados ” 130/30 ” estrategias . Con estas estrategias , los hedge funds tienen una exposición del 130% a las posiciones largas y la exposición 30 % a las posiciones cortas . También se utilizan otras estructuras , tales como 120 % de largo y 20 % a corto . ( Fondos de cobertura Pocos tienen un sesgo de corto a largo plazo , ya que los mercados de acciones tienden a subir con el tiempo. )

Equidad gerentes largo-corto también se pueden distinguir por el mercado geográfico en el que invierten , el sector en el que invierten ( , cuidado de la salud financiera o de la tecnología , por ejemplo) o su estilo de inversión (valor o cuantitativa , por ejemplo). Compra y venta de dos acciones -por ejemplo , relacionados con dos poblaciones de la misma región o industria – que se llama un modelo de ” comercio emparejado ” . Puede limitar el riesgo a un subconjunto específico del mercado en lugar de la del mercado en general.

Equidad estrategias long-short han sido utilizados por inversionistas sofisticados , como las instituciones , desde hace años. Se convirtieron en cada vez más popular entre los inversores individuales como las estrategias tradicionales luchaban en el mercado a la baja más reciente, destacando la necesidad de los inversores a considerar la ampliación de su cartera en soluciones financieras innovadoras.

Equidad estrategias a largo cortas no están exentos de riesgos. Estas estrategias tienen todos los riesgos genéricos de fondos de cobertura : Por ejemplo, los fondos de cobertura por lo general no son tan líquidos como fondos de inversión, lo que significa que es más difícil de vender acciones , las estrategias que utilizan podrían dar lugar a pérdidas significativas , y que pueden tener altas tarifas . Adicionalmente , la equidad estrategias long-short tienen algunos riesgos únicos. La principal es que el gestor de la cartera debe predecir correctamente el comportamiento relativo de dos poblaciones , lo que puede ser difícil. Otro riesgo resulta de lo que se conoce en la industria como ” falta de coincidencia beta . ” Si bien esto es más complicado que podemos explicar en detalle aquí, en esencia , significa que.

cuando el mercado de valores disminuye drásticamente , las posiciones largas podrían perder más de las posiciones cortas .

En resumen , la equidad estrategias a largo cortos pueden ayudar a aumentar la rentabilidad en entornos de mercado difíciles, pero también implican cierto riesgo. Como resultado, los inversores que estén considerando estas estrategias pueden querer asegurarse de que sus fondos de cobertura siguen reglas estrictas para evaluar los riesgos de mercado y encontrar buenas oportunidades de inversión .

Cima de la montaña: High performing investors of 2013


George Soros

2013 Earnings: $4 billion
The legend continues. In 2013, George Soros had a pretty good year, with Soros Fund Management delivering returns north of 22%. That was not good enough to beat the U.S. stock market, but it still made Soros a lot of money. Soros is not involved in the day-to-day operations of Soros Fund Management, the $29 billion family office that manages Soros’ fortune and money he has given away to his foundations. The firm is overseen by Scott Bessent, Soros Fund Management’s chief investment officer, but Soros remains involved and the firm’s big short bet on the yen at the start of 2013 was vintage Soros. He continues to be a market moving force and his short of the yen after Japanese policy makers accelerated monetary easing was widely watched. The famous philanthropist was also involved in major hedge fund battleground stocks last year. Betting against fellow hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman’s “pyramid scheme” hypothesis, Soros sided with Carl Icahn in going long the nutritional supplements company Herbalife, becoming one of the company’s largest shareholders. He trimmed the position near the end of the year. Born in Budapest, Soros survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary and went on to study at the London School of Economics before launching his hedge fund in 1969.

Steve Cohen

2013 Earnings: $2.3 billion
In 2013, Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors hedge fund firm pleaded guilty to criminal insider trading charges and agreed to pay $1.8 billion in fines and penalties to the federal government. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan worked on what turned out to be two more successful prosecutions of former SAC Capital employees and Cohen is transforming his Stamford, Ct., hedge fund firm into a family office, returning billions of dollars to outside investors. But through it all, Cohen, 58, continued to do what he does best—make profitable trades and earn lots of money. SAC Capital knocked out net returns of about 19% in 2013. That was not as good as what the U.S. stock market returned, but it beat most other hedge fund managers.

John Paulson

2013 Earnings: $1.9 billion
The biggest comeback ever? After three very tough years, Paulson, 58, came roaring back in 2013. His $2.7 billion Recovery Fund posted net returns of 63%, his Paulson Enhanced funds returned 33% and the Advantage funds generated net returns north of 26%. About 80% of the $20 billion in assets that Paulson’s Paulson & Co., hedge fund firm oversees are now above their high watermark, meaning the firm is charging rich performance fees again. The only trouble spot in 2013 was gold. The 28% plunge of the yellow metal in 2013 not only hurt the returns of his relatively small Gold Fund, in which he has a large stake, it also dented the returns of the gold-denominated holdings he personally keeps in his other hedge funds.

Carl Icahn

2013 Earnings: $1.7 billion
Carl Icahn was everywhere in 2013. He battled with Michael Dell, helped push Aubrey McClendon out of Chesapeake Energy, made a killer trade on Netflix, fought with William Ackman over Herbalife, and loudly lobbied for Apple to repurchase more of its stock. In the end, Icahn’s investment fund returned 31% in 2013, which is pretty impressive given that its portfolio was largely hedged.

robotic convoy


Los nuevos reyes del Antiguo: David Tepper

2013 Earnings: $3.5 billion
Tepper has set a new standard for hedge fund managers. His track record has long been phenomenal, but since the financial crisis his returns have reached a whole new level. In 2013, the 56-year-old founder of Appaloosa Management outperformed the U.S. stock market and the vast majority of hedge fund managers, with his biggest fund posting net returns of more than 42%. Over the last five years, Tepper’s main hedge fund has generated annualized net returns of nearly 40%—and gross returns of some 50%. In what has almost become an annual tradition, Tepper gave back some cash to his investors at the end of the year. In 2013, Tepper’s Appaloosa celebrated its 20th anniversary by pledging $20 million to various charities. Tepper also gave $67 million to Carnegie Mellon University last year—adding to the $55 million he previously gave the university—and continued to support other causes like basic needs and education.

Appaloosa Management is an American hedge fund founded in 1993 by David Tepper and Jack Walton specializing in distressed debt.Appaloosa Management invests in public equity and fixed income markets around the world.

In 1993 David Tepper and Jack Walton founded Appaloosa Management, an employee owned hedge fund, in Chatham, New Jersey.[4][5] The firm through the 1990s was known as a junk bond investment boutique and through the 2000s a hedge fund.

2002 Conseco & Marconi Corp.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 Appaloosa Management returns were heavily a result of junk-bond and distressed debt bets in Conseco and Marconi Corp. that the market was bottoming out.

2007 Delphi

Assets under management in 2007 were $5.3 billion. The Financial Times reports the company has “attracted interest for its large ownership position in Delphi, the bankrupt car parts supplier, and its clashes on whether management has the shareholders best interests in mind or those of GM and the UAW.”

2008 financial crisis through 2011

Appaloosa survived the financial crisis of 2008 with relatively few investor redemption orders.

From 2009 to 2010 Appaloosa Management’s assets under management grew from $5 billion to $12 billion.

In November 2010 the New York Times reported total assets under management of $14 billion.

In 2010 it was reported that since 1993 Appaloosa Management had returned $12.4 billion to clients—ranking it sixth on a ranking of total returns to clients by managers since inception.

In 2011 the company was awarded the Institutional Hedge Fund Firm of the Year award.

In Sep 2011, a Delaware bankruptcy court found that Appaloosa Management is one of four hedge funds that had played a role in Washington Mutual’s restructuring which might have received confidential information that could have been used to trade improperly in the bank’s debt.

Investment Strategy

Appaloosa Management’s investments focus on undiversified concentrated investment positions.Appaloosa invests in the global public equity and fixed income markets with a focus on “equities and debt of distressed companies, bonds, exchange warrants, optionsfutures, notes, and junk bonds.” According to BusinessWeek, the firm’s client base consists of high net worth individuals, pension and profit sharing plans, corporations, foreign governments, foundations, universities, and other organizations.” Investors commit to a locked period of three years during which their withdrawals are limited to 25 percent of their total investment.


Palomino Fund

The Palomino Fund from its inception in 1995 to 1998 had a 25 percent return. After Russia defaulted, the fund lost 49 percent of its value between February to September 1998. The fund returned –26.7% percent in 2008 and 117.3 percent in 2009. The company was ranked by Bloomberg Markets as the top performing fund of any hedge fund manager managing over one billion dollars


देवताओं और गोल्ड: Metacapital Mortgage Opportunities


                                            Manager: Deepak Narula

Management Firm: Metacapital Management

Location: U.S.

Strategy: Mortgage-backed arbitrage

Assets, in billions: $1.5

YTD total return: 37.8%

2011 return: 23.6%

(Reuters) – Deepak Narula, one of the hedge fund industry’s best known mortgage bond traders, said he sees a much tougher year ahead for investors but sees opportunities in certain mortgage trades.

Next year will “be a more challenging year” than 2013 because of “much greater uncertainty around how the Fed will behave,” and because of lofty bond and equity valuations, Narula, the founder of $1.45 billion hedge fund Metacapital Management, said on Wednesday.

This year Narula’s main fund has struggled to produce gains, though an investor recently told Reuters the portfolio has been able to reduce losses in the last few months. However, the firm’s $240 million Rising Rates fund, launched in May, has climbed about 14 percent year-to-date.

Last year, Metacapital’s flagship fund soared more than 40 percent, as structured credit funds rose about 19 percent on averaged. “Absent some large shock to the system” that causes initial cheapening of assets “those returns are history,” Narula said.

Those funds have only risen about 8 percent on average this year.

Managers who invested in residential mortgage-backed securities throughout 2012 and the beginning of 2013 benefited mightily from the Federal Reserve’s efforts to keep interest rates low, which pushed up the prices of mortgage bonds.


Deepak Narula has given us some sound advice – you want to be careful going against the mission of the Federal Reserve.

And, his hedge fund earned a 38 percent return last year, the number one hedge fund performer according to Bloomberg News.

“To revive the housing market, the Fed has thrown a lot of firepower at agency mortgage-backed securities. Policy makers have worked hard to let homeowners refinance. They’ve been clear that that’s their mission-and you want to be careful going against that mission.”

George Soros, who bet against the British pound in the 1990s and made millions of dollars, I’m sure, would agree.

In addition, three of the top five funds in the Bloomberg Markets list of top performing hedge funds also were investors in mortgage securities.

“Betting on mortgage securities outpaced every other strategy, with an average return of 20.2 percent against an industry average of just 1.3 percent,” states the Bloomberg report.

But, hedge funds are not the only ones that benefited from the Federal Reserve action. Check out these two posts: “Is it too late to get into the housing rebound?” and “Is it too late to get into the housing rebound? Part Two“.

Three cheers for saving the middle class!

Nothing seems to work better as a way to make money than to work with a government policy or program. Ask the people who started up Solyndra!

The major problem with betting against a government policy or program … don’t be too early.

Narula has not always been successful in playing the mortgage market. He started his fund Metacapital in 2002. He saw the danger in the market for subprime mortgages as early as 2005 and start shorting them. Subprime mortgages did tank, but not until three years later.


In 2006 his fund had to return money to investors and in 2007 he had to close the fund. He was “right,” but then again, he was “wrong.”

As he states, “If you are too early, you are wrong.”

But, betting “with” government policy works on the upside as well.

Over the past fifty years or so, the federal government, supported by the Federal Reserve, created credit by the millions of dollars in order to keep unemployment at low levels and to foster home ownership for the middle class and below. We had a sustained period of “credit inflation.”

Three things happen in a period of credit inflation: people take on more and more risk; people build up more and more financial leverage; and people engage in financial innovation. The last fifty years is known for all three of these things happening.

And, during this period, more and more people went to work in the financial and more and more companies added financial subsidiaries. By the early2000s, a substantially greater percentage of Americans worked in the financial sector than ever before. And, many manufacturing companies, likeGeneral Electric (GE) and General Motors (GM), earned more than fifty percent of their profits from their financial subsidiaries.

The “mission” of the federal government and the Federal Reserve System was to provide the economy with high levels of employment and greater degrees of home ownership.

The mental attitude of the leaders of American finance and industry? Well, as summarized by Charles (Chuck) Prince, the CEO of Citigroup, “”As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”

Those that left the dance floor “too soon” were “right” that things were getting too risky and might fall apart. But, as Narula said, “If you are too early, you are wrong.”

Your government creates opportunities to make money … and to make lots of it. The big money to earn will, however, not go to those that will help to reduce the imbalance in the income/wealth curve. As we have seen, the past fifty years of credit inflation have done more to create the imbalances that now exist than reduce them.

And, government “missions” will continue to do so in the future.

So, one way to make money is to determine what is the federal government or the Federal Reserve “mission” and bet “with” the mission. That is, find out what these people are trying to do and develop an investment strategy that “uses” this mission. We know that the federal government and the Federal Reserve, in their well-meaning way, will continue on with their policies for a long time.

The Federal Reserve says that short-term interest rates will remain low until 2015. Really?

George Soros can tell you that when a government positions itself in this way, opportunities exist.

But, remember what Narula said – to be too early is to be wrong. Also, if you try and get into the game too late or stick around the game for too long, you will be wrong.

Timing is important.

Three cheers for Deepak Narula!

Location Type Single Location
State of Incorporation New York
Annual Revenue Estimate 120000
Employees 2
SIC Code 6722, Management Investment Offices, Open-End
NAICS Code 525910, Open-End Investment Funds
Business Categories

El puente de espacio y más allá: Google’s Mission to the moon

The X PRIZE Foundation is an educational 501(c)3 nonprofit organization whose mission is to bring about radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity, thereby inspiring the formation of new industries and the revitalization of markets that are currently stuck due to existing failures or a commonly held belief that a solution is not possible. The foundation addresses the world’s Grand Challenges by creating and managing large-scale, high-profile, incentivized prize competitions that stimulate investment in research and development worth far more than the prize itself. It motivates and inspires brilliant innovators from all disciplines to leverage their intellectual and financial capital.

The Google Lunar X Prize offers a total of US$30 million in prizes to the first privately funded teams to land a robot on the Moon that successfully travels more than 500 meters (1,640 ft) and transmits back high definition images and video. The first team to do so will claim the US$20 million Grand Prize; while the second team to accomplish the same tasks will earn a US$5 million Second Place Prize. Teams can also earn additional money by completing additional tasks beyond the baseline requirements required to win the Grand or Second Place Prize, such as traveling ten times the baseline requirements (greater than 5,000 meters (3 mi)), capturing images of the remains of Apollo program hardware or other man-made objects on the Moon, verifying from the lunar surface the recent detection of water ice on the Moon, or surviving a lunar night. Additionally, a US$1 million Diversity Award may be given to teams that make significant strides in promoting ethnic diversity in STEM fields. Finally, Space Florida, one of the “Preferred Partners” for the competition has offered an additional US$2 million bonus to teams who launch their mission from the state of Florida.

Terminamos 2013 con otro gran cuarto de impulso y crecimiento. Ingresos independiente de Google subió un 22% año tras año, a 15,7 mil millones dólares “, dijo Larry Page, CEO de Google.” Hemos hecho un gran progreso en una amplia gama de mejoras en el producto y los objetivos de negocio. También estoy muy entusiasmado con la mejora de vida de las personas aún más con el trabajo continuo duro en nuestras experiencias de usuario.

Dow Jones 16,303.34 0.19%
Nasdaq 4,300.86 -0.42%
Technology -0.41%
GOOG 1,212.69 -0.53%

-6.52 (-0.53%)
Real-time:   3:37PM EST

NASDAQ real-time data – Disclaimer

Currency in USD
Range 1,206.22 – 1,224.19
52 week 761.26 – 1,228.88
Open 1,220.34
Vol / Avg. 1.59M/2.46M
Mkt cap 407.72B
P/E 34.22
Div/yield     –
EPS 35.45
Shares 336.05M
Beta 0.98
Inst. own 72%



投资于机器人: The future is here investing in robotics

One of the most popular businesses – Bedford’s iRobot – created the floor-cleaning disc Roomba. Another company, Boston Dynamics, built a product called LittleDog that scientists are using to “probe fundamental relationships among motor learning, dynamic control, perception of the environment and rough terrain locomotion,” according to its YouTube page. – See more at: company that specializes in building dynamic robots and software for human simulation.

These and other companies may be in need of technology consulting services. For example, Liquid Robotics of California recently completed a $22 million round of financing that included minor investments from an oilfield services company and Stanford University, the Wall Street Journal reports. The company is currently valued at $70 million.
– See more at:

Google is joining the growing list of companies investing in military technology. On Friday, the Internet giant bought Boston Dynamics, a company known for developing animal-like robots that can outrun even the world’s fastest man.



Seeking Alpha


IRBT-A provider of mobile robots for the consumer market, including the iRobot-LE home robot,
Prev Close: 44.48
Open: 44.30
Bid: 41.06 x 500
Ask: 41.10 x 200
1y Target Est: 41.00
Beta: 1.82
Next Earnings Date: 22-Apr-14IRBT Earnings announcement
Day’s Range: 40.41 – 44.89
52wk Range: 21.13 – 46.99
Volume: 1,106,384
Avg Vol (3m): 993,657
Market Cap: 1.18B
P/E (ttm): 43.72
EPS (ttm): 0.94
Div & Yield: N/A (N/A

Boston Dynamics is an enVenture capital firms in Boston may want to pay attention to the increased number of robotics firms in the state, according to the Boston Business Journal. There are at least 60 known robotics companies in Massachusetts, as reported by the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council.

The company began as a spin-off from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where National Academy of Engineering member Marc Raibert and his colleagues first developed robots that ran and maneuvered like animals. They founded the company in 1992, and their ground-breaking work continues to inspire several of the company’s activities.

Today the company creates a variety of innovative robots, including BigDog, a quadruped robot for travel on rough-terrain, PETMAN, an anthropomorphic robot for testing equipment, RISE, a robot that climbs vertical surfaces, SquishBot, a shape-changing chemical robot that moves through tight space, and many others.

Co Founder

未来的国王:Top little known Hedge Funds


Bridgewater manages approximately $150 billion in global investments for a wide array of institutional clients, including foreign governments and central banks, corporate and public pension funds, university endowments and charitable foundations. Approximately 1,400 people work at Bridgewater, which is based in Westport, Connecticut.

Founded in 1975 out of a two-bedroom apartment, Bridgewater remains an independent, employee-run organization. Throughout its 39-year history, Bridgewater has been recognized as a top-performing manager and an industry innovator, winning over 40 industry awards in the past five years alone. In both 2010 and 2011, Bridgewater ranked as the largest and best-performing hedge fund manager in the world and in both 2012 and 2013 Bridgewater was recognized for having earned its clients more than any other hedge fund in the history of the industry. Its clients and employees routinely give Bridgewater top satisfaction ratings in annual surveys.


Management Firm, Location: Blue Harbour Group, U.S.

Strategy: Activist

Assets (in billions): $1.3

YTD Total Return: +19.8%

2012 Return: +16.2%

Read more:

Blue Harbour Group, L.P., a Registered Investment Advisor, is an investment manager focused on investing in undervalued U.S. public companies. Our mandate is to serve as a trusted lead investor, working in a collaborative and supportive manner with companies to identify initiatives to unlock and create shareholder value. We are long term investors with a multi-year investment horizon.


Clifton S. Robbins is the Chief Executive Officer and Portfolio Manager of Blue Harbour Group, L.P. and has been an investor for over twenty-five years. Prior to founding Blue Harbour Group in 2004, Mr. Robbins had been a Managing Member of General Atlantic Partners, LLC. Prior to joining General Atlantic Partners in 2000, Mr. Robbins had been a General Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. which he joined in 1987. Mr. Robbins began his career in Mergers & Acquisitions at Morgan Stanley & Co. in 1980.


Mr. Robbins is complemented by a team of senior professionals responsible for generating investment ideas, developing relationships with management teams, performing research and due diligence on prospective investments, and monitoring portfolio investments. The team consists of professionals with experience ranging from six to fifteen years in the areas of corporate finance, private and public market investing.



Blue Harbour’s approach to investing in the public markets is similar in many respects to private equity investors. In this regard, Blue Harbour’s investment approach seeks to add value by working collaboratively with company management to design and to implement strategic initiatives that unlock and create shareholder value. We focus on U.S. public companies that could create significant value by implementing strategic or financial change. Much like private equity investors, a critical component of our strategy is to support superior management teams who are committed to creating value for shareholders. Importantly, unlike private equity investors, Blue Harbour’s mandate to invest in publicly traded securities affords us the advantages of not paying control premiums nor are we subject to the illiquidity and leverage of private equity models.

  • We source investment opportunities primarily through publicly traded markets but can also buy equity stakes directly from the issuer if appropriate
  • We acquire a significant minority stake and become a lead shareholder
  • We acquire our positions at the public market price instead of by auctions
  • We collaborate with company management on critical strategic and financial issues

 HT Capital Management – Hong Kong


AP Images

Founded: 1997

AUM: $673.2 million

Manager: Ophelia Tong

  • Tong co-founded HT Capital with her husband Karl Hurst.

Strategies: Long Equity

  • HT’s two funds combined to return 6.08% last year.