Buffett lunch costs 1.68m dollars
In this article you can read that the firm Salida Capital, a Canadian investment firm, paid 1.68 million US dollars to lunch with the famous investor Warren Buffett. If you donated money to the Glide Foundation, which provides social services to the homeless and the poor inhabitants of San Francisco, you could win a lunch with Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett holds this contest each year, and the winner of the year 2008 paid even 2.1 million US dollars. The only reason why those firms would donate something is to have a good discussion about different topics with investor Warren Buffett and to get some good advice for the future of the world’s richest man on the Forbes list of 2008.
I think that it is crazy to pay all the money, if you know that the money goes to charity. Maybe that’s a good fact in this deal; “benefit”. On the other hand, the Canadian firm won a lunch with the best investor from this time, so maybe if they’ve got some good advice of him, they can win back the money they’ve paid. So maybe if the company is lucky, this could be a good investment at time. Buffett is also very clever: he knows that people aren’t going to donate that amount of money to charity, and by giving a nice price for the biggest giver, he is certainly able to make more people donate.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/159967/Buffett-lunch-costs-1-68m-dollars
woensdag 7 april 2010
woensdag 31 maart 2010
Blog 7 by Nicolas Verstraete; "Ford sells Volvo to Chinese Group for £1.2bn"
Ford Sells Volvo To Chinese Group For £1.2bn
This article tells about Ford who’s selling Volvo to a Chinese group for £1.2bn. This is not the first department that they are selling, because in 2008, they sold the firm Jaguar and Land Rover to India’s Tata Motors Ltd. for $1.7bn. Ford is selling the department because it wasn’t profitable for the company. They can now focus their selves on managing its core Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands. The only problem for Ford is that they lose a lot by selling this department: they bought it in the past for £4.3bn.
The Chinese group on the other hand is very happy with the deal because they want to stabilize and enhance the traditional markets in Europe and in North America. At the same time, they want to develop Volvo in emerging markets, including China. They also mention in this text that Geely’s chairman, Li Shufu, wants to keep manufacturing facilities in Sweden and Belgium, but they will also explore manufacturing in China.
I think this is a good investment for the Chinese group: as you can see Ford paid almost 3 times the price they’ve sold it for! With regard to the Chinese economy, this isn’t a bad investment too. On the other hand, it’s also a good deal for Ford because if they had kept this department they would only have had more problems and maybe without knowing the company could have gone bankrupt.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Ford-Sells-Volvo-To-Chinese-Zhejiang-Geely-Holding-Group-Buys-Swedish-Unit-For-12bn/Article/201003415587091?f=rss
This article tells about Ford who’s selling Volvo to a Chinese group for £1.2bn. This is not the first department that they are selling, because in 2008, they sold the firm Jaguar and Land Rover to India’s Tata Motors Ltd. for $1.7bn. Ford is selling the department because it wasn’t profitable for the company. They can now focus their selves on managing its core Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands. The only problem for Ford is that they lose a lot by selling this department: they bought it in the past for £4.3bn.
The Chinese group on the other hand is very happy with the deal because they want to stabilize and enhance the traditional markets in Europe and in North America. At the same time, they want to develop Volvo in emerging markets, including China. They also mention in this text that Geely’s chairman, Li Shufu, wants to keep manufacturing facilities in Sweden and Belgium, but they will also explore manufacturing in China.
I think this is a good investment for the Chinese group: as you can see Ford paid almost 3 times the price they’ve sold it for! With regard to the Chinese economy, this isn’t a bad investment too. On the other hand, it’s also a good deal for Ford because if they had kept this department they would only have had more problems and maybe without knowing the company could have gone bankrupt.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Ford-Sells-Volvo-To-Chinese-Zhejiang-Geely-Holding-Group-Buys-Swedish-Unit-For-12bn/Article/201003415587091?f=rss
donderdag 25 maart 2010
Blog 6 by Nicolas Verstraete; "Plymouth gets £25m investment in marine research"
Plymouth gets £25m investment in marine research
The article tells about an investment of 25million pounds in a research center in Plymouth (United Kingdom). There’s a need for research in marine engineering, wave energy and science.
Professor Wendy Purcell said that Plymouth should be the location for this excellent research center, because recently, Plymouth began to receive recognition of the entire world.
A minister agreed with which professor Wendy Purcell has said and is very pleased that Plymouth will become the home of an excellent and innovative science center. The minister is also thinking forwards; as he said, this project will create a lot of new employment opportunities for the young people of the city. The investment is not coming from one investor only but from different institutions who want to help financing the project.
I think this is a good investment because with the money they can finance the research for science, wave energy and marine engineering in Plymouth. This is a “green energy”-project, so it doesn’t violate the environment, it’s natural and the source is inexhaustible. It’s also very good for the economy of the city of Plymouth, because this project will create a lot of new jobs and because this is a new project, a lot of young people will get their chance to grow in this project. I think that this is a good start for the environment and that there should be much more of this “green energy”-projects.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/8575456.stm
The article tells about an investment of 25million pounds in a research center in Plymouth (United Kingdom). There’s a need for research in marine engineering, wave energy and science.
Professor Wendy Purcell said that Plymouth should be the location for this excellent research center, because recently, Plymouth began to receive recognition of the entire world.
A minister agreed with which professor Wendy Purcell has said and is very pleased that Plymouth will become the home of an excellent and innovative science center. The minister is also thinking forwards; as he said, this project will create a lot of new employment opportunities for the young people of the city. The investment is not coming from one investor only but from different institutions who want to help financing the project.
I think this is a good investment because with the money they can finance the research for science, wave energy and marine engineering in Plymouth. This is a “green energy”-project, so it doesn’t violate the environment, it’s natural and the source is inexhaustible. It’s also very good for the economy of the city of Plymouth, because this project will create a lot of new jobs and because this is a new project, a lot of young people will get their chance to grow in this project. I think that this is a good start for the environment and that there should be much more of this “green energy”-projects.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/8575456.stm
vrijdag 19 maart 2010
Blog 5 by Nicolas Verstraete; "UK must invest its way out of recession"
UK must invest its way out of recession
After the biggest recession since the Second World War, the debate arose about how to deal with the deficit of the public sector, one of the consequences of the recession.
During the recession, people had a complete other spending pattern: they didn’t consume a lot less, but there was a huge investment fall of 19.3%. Critics say that there must be a restoration of the lost investment, if we don’t want the economy and the competitiveness between people to be permanently low.
Many people thought that the recession was a consequence of the irresponsible spending of Gordon Brown, or a consequence of our profligacy. But that’s not true, and due to the falling taxes the deficit will only grow.
There have been attempts for fiscal stimulation and to make the policy of ‘reassuring the financial markets’ work, but these have all failed: tax receipts have fallen and there was an increase of government spending. Not everyone has faith in the theory of ‘investing the way out of the recession’, although Treasury’s research and the positive outcomes of government investment seem to prove the contrary. Other researches show us that investment is far more important for our current economy than government spending. The only way to reduce the deficit is to get these trends work for us and to make sure everyone gets back to work and pays their taxes. Then it will be possible for the government to invest its way out of the recession.
I think it makes perfect sense that people invest less during a crisis. Off course, they will also consume less, but it stays important to buy food, clothes, gas … whether it’s crisis or not. Less necessary things, like investing, will be of secondary importance. But investments are crucial for our economy, which has been proven by numerous researches. So I think it’s important to make government and other people invest again, while making sure that the government doesn’t spend unnecessarily. It’s better to strive for slow, effective improvement instead of having a huge boom of the economy followed by another bust.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/19/recession-public-deficit-investment
After the biggest recession since the Second World War, the debate arose about how to deal with the deficit of the public sector, one of the consequences of the recession.
During the recession, people had a complete other spending pattern: they didn’t consume a lot less, but there was a huge investment fall of 19.3%. Critics say that there must be a restoration of the lost investment, if we don’t want the economy and the competitiveness between people to be permanently low.
Many people thought that the recession was a consequence of the irresponsible spending of Gordon Brown, or a consequence of our profligacy. But that’s not true, and due to the falling taxes the deficit will only grow.
There have been attempts for fiscal stimulation and to make the policy of ‘reassuring the financial markets’ work, but these have all failed: tax receipts have fallen and there was an increase of government spending. Not everyone has faith in the theory of ‘investing the way out of the recession’, although Treasury’s research and the positive outcomes of government investment seem to prove the contrary. Other researches show us that investment is far more important for our current economy than government spending. The only way to reduce the deficit is to get these trends work for us and to make sure everyone gets back to work and pays their taxes. Then it will be possible for the government to invest its way out of the recession.
I think it makes perfect sense that people invest less during a crisis. Off course, they will also consume less, but it stays important to buy food, clothes, gas … whether it’s crisis or not. Less necessary things, like investing, will be of secondary importance. But investments are crucial for our economy, which has been proven by numerous researches. So I think it’s important to make government and other people invest again, while making sure that the government doesn’t spend unnecessarily. It’s better to strive for slow, effective improvement instead of having a huge boom of the economy followed by another bust.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/19/recession-public-deficit-investment
zondag 14 maart 2010
Blog 4 by Nicolas Verstraete; "The ten questions to ask before investing your hard-earned cash"
The ten questions to ask before investing your hard-earned cash
In this article they explain to people who want to invest what they should ask their selves before investing. The Times tells us that there are 10 basic questions.
1. What am I investing in? It’s important that advisers can answer all of your questions and that you remember that investments sometimes have very misleading names.
2. Is my capital secure? Not every investment is delivering profits and you can lose money on everything. Even if you invest in “guaranteed products” you may be disappointed to see that those products aren’t as guaranteed as you thought they were.
3. How risky is the investment?
4. What are the charges? It’s important to know exactly what the fees, commissions and charges of the investment are, because these can add a lot of extra costs.
5. What if the provider goes bust? If your provider goes bust, you can be compensated by ‘The Financial Services Compensation Scheme’, but be careful: the FSCS only protects you against the busting of the product provider and not against the falling apart of the underlying bank.
6. What are the tax implications?
7. When can I access my money? A good notification of this aspect is crucial, because a lot of investment bonds charge penalties on early withdrawals or steep if investors want to cash in their money earlier than thought.
8. Who is advising me? It’s better to take advice from someone with a diploma in financial planning instead of taking the advice from bank advisors, because the latter (working on commission) may be pushing you in buying shares.
9. Are all my eggs in one basket? In other words, it’s important to spread the risk of investing, instead of putting all your money in one product.
10. Do I feel pressurized? It’s a well-known fact that handling under pressure isn’t good at all, which certainly applies to the investment branch. So if you feel pressurized by an advisor or if you feel any doubt, don’t buy it!
Nowadays, there exist a lot of manuals of the genre ‘singing for dummies’, ‘cooking for dummies’ and off course ‘investing for dummies’. I think it’s important to bear in mind that investing is more than gaining money without doing anything and that it may be risky to invest in something. A lot of people don’t realize this, so it’s a good thing such guidelines exist.
Off course, these rules aren’t formulas for a successful investment, but they certainly point out some significant traps.
Having read this article, I would think twice before investing, and I would certainly use this little ‘checklist’ before putting my money in some shares.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article6814015.ece
In this article they explain to people who want to invest what they should ask their selves before investing. The Times tells us that there are 10 basic questions.
1. What am I investing in? It’s important that advisers can answer all of your questions and that you remember that investments sometimes have very misleading names.
2. Is my capital secure? Not every investment is delivering profits and you can lose money on everything. Even if you invest in “guaranteed products” you may be disappointed to see that those products aren’t as guaranteed as you thought they were.
3. How risky is the investment?
4. What are the charges? It’s important to know exactly what the fees, commissions and charges of the investment are, because these can add a lot of extra costs.
5. What if the provider goes bust? If your provider goes bust, you can be compensated by ‘The Financial Services Compensation Scheme’, but be careful: the FSCS only protects you against the busting of the product provider and not against the falling apart of the underlying bank.
6. What are the tax implications?
7. When can I access my money? A good notification of this aspect is crucial, because a lot of investment bonds charge penalties on early withdrawals or steep if investors want to cash in their money earlier than thought.
8. Who is advising me? It’s better to take advice from someone with a diploma in financial planning instead of taking the advice from bank advisors, because the latter (working on commission) may be pushing you in buying shares.
9. Are all my eggs in one basket? In other words, it’s important to spread the risk of investing, instead of putting all your money in one product.
10. Do I feel pressurized? It’s a well-known fact that handling under pressure isn’t good at all, which certainly applies to the investment branch. So if you feel pressurized by an advisor or if you feel any doubt, don’t buy it!
Nowadays, there exist a lot of manuals of the genre ‘singing for dummies’, ‘cooking for dummies’ and off course ‘investing for dummies’. I think it’s important to bear in mind that investing is more than gaining money without doing anything and that it may be risky to invest in something. A lot of people don’t realize this, so it’s a good thing such guidelines exist.
Off course, these rules aren’t formulas for a successful investment, but they certainly point out some significant traps.
Having read this article, I would think twice before investing, and I would certainly use this little ‘checklist’ before putting my money in some shares.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article6814015.ece
donderdag 4 maart 2010
Blog 3 by Nicolas Verstraete; "Investing Advice, about Investing Online"
Investing Advice, about Investing Online
The internet has become an important tool in the investment world.
Nowadays, you can do your investments wherever you are, if only you have internet access. In the past though, you had to go to your investor or to your investment office.
A disadvantage of the internet is the fact that when you do your investments, you will have a delay of 30 to 40 minutes, so it’s certainly important to be aware of this delay. An advantage of working with the internet, is that an investment on the internet offers you a lower fee.
I think doing your investments with the internet is much easier than doing it the traditional way, but if you do it that way it’s a disadvantage that you won’t get any help or advice from a person who knows more about it than you do. So although it’s easier using the internet, it’s not always the best option. I also think that the issue with the delay is not a good thing, so maybe they should find a solution for those delays. Thus it’s certainly an improvement that we can do our investments with the internet but it’s not quite perfect. If I should do my investments, I would go to an investment office to get some information and advice, which seems the best option to me nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF0-J0PTM_o
(YouTube; Investment Advice, About Investing Online)
The internet has become an important tool in the investment world.
Nowadays, you can do your investments wherever you are, if only you have internet access. In the past though, you had to go to your investor or to your investment office.
A disadvantage of the internet is the fact that when you do your investments, you will have a delay of 30 to 40 minutes, so it’s certainly important to be aware of this delay. An advantage of working with the internet, is that an investment on the internet offers you a lower fee.
I think doing your investments with the internet is much easier than doing it the traditional way, but if you do it that way it’s a disadvantage that you won’t get any help or advice from a person who knows more about it than you do. So although it’s easier using the internet, it’s not always the best option. I also think that the issue with the delay is not a good thing, so maybe they should find a solution for those delays. Thus it’s certainly an improvement that we can do our investments with the internet but it’s not quite perfect. If I should do my investments, I would go to an investment office to get some information and advice, which seems the best option to me nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF0-J0PTM_o
(YouTube; Investment Advice, About Investing Online)
donderdag 25 februari 2010
Blog 2 by Nicolas Verstraete; "Gordon Brown sells Britain as Europe's best place to invest in"
Gordon Brown sells Britain as Europe’s best place to invest in
On Monday 22 February 2010, Gordon Brown has started a charm offensive to persuade companies from across the world to invest more in the UK.
Brown, accompanied by the trade minister and the Chancellor, has made use of the Global Investment Conference in London to reach these multinational companies. (I was able to find the transcript and video of Brown’s speech to the Global Investment Conference on the following web address: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22554).
Brown used a lot of arguments in order to persuade 250 chief executives from across the world to choose the UK for their investment. He called the UK a scientifically and technologically advanced country committed to a good tax regime. Britain has four top universities, a very extensive broadband internet market and is a country which has received a lot of investment in Europe.
He wanted to point out that since 2000, a great number of jobs (more than 800 000) has been created by this inward investment and now they will reduce the UK’s dependence on the US by promoting more investment from India and China.
I think it’s very good that Brown is searching for foreign investment, certainly in times of crisis. The economic crisis has its origins in the United States, so I can only agree with his idea to persuade countries like China and India to invest in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/7286917/Gordon-Brown-sells-Britain-as-Europes-best-place-to-invest-in.html
On Monday 22 February 2010, Gordon Brown has started a charm offensive to persuade companies from across the world to invest more in the UK.
Brown, accompanied by the trade minister and the Chancellor, has made use of the Global Investment Conference in London to reach these multinational companies. (I was able to find the transcript and video of Brown’s speech to the Global Investment Conference on the following web address: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22554).
Brown used a lot of arguments in order to persuade 250 chief executives from across the world to choose the UK for their investment. He called the UK a scientifically and technologically advanced country committed to a good tax regime. Britain has four top universities, a very extensive broadband internet market and is a country which has received a lot of investment in Europe.
He wanted to point out that since 2000, a great number of jobs (more than 800 000) has been created by this inward investment and now they will reduce the UK’s dependence on the US by promoting more investment from India and China.
I think it’s very good that Brown is searching for foreign investment, certainly in times of crisis. The economic crisis has its origins in the United States, so I can only agree with his idea to persuade countries like China and India to invest in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/7286917/Gordon-Brown-sells-Britain-as-Europes-best-place-to-invest-in.html
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
