Alizee World Fri, 04 Jun 2021 23:50:24 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Alizee World 32 32 Global stocks near all-time high, dollar drops after US jobs data Fri, 04 Jun 2021 21:33:00 +0000

Global stocks rallied on Friday and closed near all-time highs, and oil and gold rose as the dollar fell after US jobs data was strong but not as strong than expected, allaying investor fears that the Federal Reserve will soon curb monetary stimulus.

American employers increased their hires in May and raised wages. But the increase in the non-farm payroll of 559,000 jobs has landed below the 650,000 forecasts of economists polled by Reuters. Read more

The pan-European STOXX 600 index (.STOXX) rose 0.39% after hitting a record high this week. MSCI’s All Country World Index (.MIWD00000PUS), which tracks the shares of 50 countries around the world, gained 0.71%.

A stronger-than-expected jobs report would have heightened fears that the Fed is considering cutting its bond buying program and raising interest rates. Read more

“This lower payroll number should alleviate investor worries about inflation – as long as the job market remains depressed, it’s hard to see wage inflation rise,” said Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at Independent Advisor Alliance in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Zaccarelli added that there could be lingering concerns about headline price inflation as the Fed keeps rates low for longer amid an unprecedented fiscal stimulus.

Market whispers were more prominent, analysts said. US Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh in an interview with CNBC welcomed a “good and strong” employment report and predicted that more Americans would return to work in the coming months as that more people would be vaccinated.

On Wall Street, Microsoft (MSFT.O) raised the S&P 500 (.SPX), followed by Apple (AAPL.O), as the index gained 37.04 points, or 0.88%, to 4 229.89, marking an overall jump close to the record of over 12% this year. These technology companies represent more than 5% of the weight of the MSCI all-country index.

Shares of Inc (AMZN.O), Facebook (FB.O), Google Alphabet (GOOGL.O) and Tesla (TSLA.O) also rose.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) rose 179.35 points, or 0.52%, to 34,756.39 while the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) added 199.98 points, or 1.47%, at 13,814.49.

So-called “memes stocks” continued to run wild, with shares of AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC.N) showing little change but nearly doubling for the week. Read more

Analysts said investors were monitoring the progress of proposed infrastructure spending in the United States. President Joe Biden has rejected a new proposal from Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito, the White House has said. They were to meet on Monday. Read more

10-year benchmarks last rose 20/32 for a return of 1.5585%, from 1.627%, while eurozone bond yields edged down as investors questioned the Fed policy.

Oil rose, with Brent surpassing $ 72 a barrel for the first time since 2019 as an OPEC + supply discipline and demand recovery.

The dollar index fell 0.39%, the euro up 0.36% to $ 1.2168. Strategists in a Reuters poll were almost evenly divided on the dollar’s near-term direction. Read more

New orders for US-made products fell more than expected in April, as a global semiconductor shortage weighed on production of motor vehicles and electrical equipment, appliances and components. Read more


Investors analyzed the economic data to assess whether inflation could force the Fed to change course.

“Will prolonged low-wage inflation allow a longer period of low headline price inflation to prevail?” Or will a Fed that is slow to raise rates – because it’s worried about a weak labor market – create a headline inflation regime? Said Zaccarelli of the Independent Advisor Alliance.

Spot gold gained 1.1% to $ 1,890.65 an ounce after falling 2% on Thursday, its strongest since February.

Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Max Polyakov details the Dragonfly Aerospace acquisition agreement Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:35:54 +0000

Dr Max Polyakov, founder of Noosphere Ventures. Photo via LinkedIn.

Max Polyakov, Managing Partner of Noosphere Ventures Investment Fund is one of the entrepreneurs to watch in the space industry. Recently, Via satellite did an interview with Polyakov to talk about his ambitions for Earth observation data analysis (EOSDA), which plans to launch seven optical satellites into low Earth orbit (LEO) by 2024 to monitor agriculture, forestry, and more.

Then Polyakov announced that it is acquiring a controlling stake in Aerospace Dragonfly, a South African New Space company that manufactures high performance imaging satellites and payloads. The company has been successful in the South African space industry. This adds Dragonfly Aerospace to an ecosystem that includes the launch supplier Firefly Aerospace, EOSDA, and SETS, an electric space thruster systems company, part of the Noosphere Ventures portfolio of companies.

In a new interview, Via satellite talks to Polyakov about why he decided to invest in Dragonfly Aerospace and what this company brings to its line of space assets.

VIA SATELLITE: Why did you decide to acquire the South African space company Dragonfly Aerospace?

Polyakov: You don’t buy anything without confidence in the product. The Dragonfly team has a proven track record in their cooperation on EOS Data Analytics projects, and I have seen their expertise firsthand. They have over 20 years of experience in building imaging and payload satellites, especially in the high resolution segment. This acquisition consolidates Dragonfly Aerospace’s status as an essential component of the vertically integrated space ecosystem that we are building.

VIA SATELLITE: What unique abilities does Dragonfly bring to the wallet?

Polyakov: Dragonfly’s advanced imaging technology provides high-quality images in a wide range of spectra and critical resolutions to monitor the health of the planet and enable smart agriculture that helps maintain biodiversity, for example. Dragonfly’s capabilities have exciting business applications, but they can also be used to help alleviate some of humanity’s greatest challenges, such as climate change.

VIA SATELLITE: How will you integrate Dragonfly Aerospace into your portfolio of space assets? How does this fit in with Firefly Aerospace, for example?

Polyakov: It’s a perfect fit. We invest in a wide range of streamlined space technology companies across the value chain: launchers, payloads, propulsion technology, in-orbit maintenance, data analysis and R&D.

For example, Dragonfly Aerospace creates high resolution cameras. Firefly Aerospace provides affordable launch and space services, and EOS Data Analytics brings comprehensive spatial data analysis to the table and is also developing its own radar and optical satellites.

So all the pieces of the puzzle come together – we are building a vertically integrated and scalable space infrastructure with broad control over space logistics, Earth observation [EO] satellites, communications, ground stations and complex data analysis. Dragonfly – like Firefly Aerospace – is an important part of this strategy.

VIA SATELLITE: How do you see the potential of small satellites? Is the satellite world completely heading in this direction?

Polyakov: Small satellites have been adopted by commercial and civilian space communities faster than we have seen their use in national security space. Large traditional satellites continue to be the mainstay of this category, but the trend is changing rapidly. the Space development agencySmall, disaggregated satellite architectures, with their low latency response to terrestrial threats, will prove themselves to the combatant. In the short term, large satellites will continue to be the backbone of the national security space, but as the SDA “layers” mature and prove their worth, there will be a more balanced operational mix of small and large satellites. large satellites commercial and civilian space mission areas.

On the launch side, the small satellite market has been underserved for some time. Firefly Aerospace is focused on providing competitively priced lightweight payload launch vehicles for the small satellite market, where secondary payload launches are often the only option. We believe there are exciting opportunities in this market. In particular, satellite manufacturing revenues have already increased by 10% this year; much faster than what we saw just seven years ago.

In the future, small satellites will allow less capitalized players – small companies, emerging economies – to have their own space presence, and therefore we believe that today’s space companies will be incentivized to find more profitable solutions. Firefly stands just at the dawn of this world.

VIA SATELLITE: With the growing number of small satellites in orbit, what do you think of space debris? Is this the great challenge for the space sector at the dawn of this new era?

Polyakov: Space debris is a huge problem, and we’ve focused on it several times throughout our posts, trying to raise awareness about this issue and our efforts to eliminate the issue. In fact, our company Space Electric Thruster Systems, or SETS, produces non-toxic electric propulsion systems that will allow satellites to de-orbit cost-effectively. New satellites using EESS technology will no longer contribute to the space debris problem.

VIA SATELLITE: Are you looking for new acquisitions to bring more capabilities together under one roof?

Polyakov: Working closely with other industry players and sharing expertise is essential for developing customer-oriented businesses, as well as for finding solutions that add value in the space industry. Whether this takes the form of acquisitions, joint ventures, or just cooperation within the industry, we are willing to do our part to advance the small space ecosystem.

VIA SATELLITE: What are your plans in terms of building a roadmap for space assets?

Polyakov: It’s been one of my mantras since we started this business: Space technology should help improve life on Earth. We’re not just looking for business success; we want to build an economy that serves future generations. To do this, we have developed a two-pronged strategy: achieving a vertically integrated and scalable space industry with broad control over space logistics, Earth observation from satellites, communications, ground stations and complex data analysis; and cooperate with other industry players to develop customer-oriented businesses and find solutions for the benefit of humanity as a whole. Not only will this reduce costs for customers looking for integrated solutions, it will also advance the Noosphere concept as a way of thinking and spread these values ​​even further in the industry.

VIA SATELLITE: Finally, what does the rest of 2021 look like as you seek to make these space ambitions a reality?

Polyakov: These are great times for Noosphere Ventures companies. Firefly has closed its Series A of investments and is our first unicorn, valued at over $ 1 billion and with plans to grow into a multi-billion dollar company by the end of the year. Firefly also aims to launch Alpha in the coming months. We are also working on putting our first constellation of satellites into orbit in 2022. There are also a number of big contracts coming up, which I cannot disclose yet. But I can say with confidence that 2021 is indeed a watershed year for us.

]]> Biden and Europeans close to a pact on the taxation of multinationals, including big tech Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:07:03 +0000

June 4, 2021, 13:06

On the eve of his first overseas trip as US president, Joe Biden is pushing for a radical overhaul of international corporate tax policies that could resolve an impasse between the United States and Europe over taxation of the sector. American big tech and make it much more difficult for multinationals to exploit tax havens.

Meeting in London on Friday, G-7 finance ministers are expected to approve a proposal by Biden and US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for a minimum global corporate tax of at least 15%, as part of a measure that major governments hope to generate in corporate taxes. who are not paid worldwide. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for drafting tax guidelines in the world’s richest countries, is leading the discussions. This week, new OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann called Biden’s plan a “game changer” and said he was “quietly optimistic” about reaching an international tax deal multinational companies.

Biden is also asking the G-7 and G-20 countries to approve an additional proposal requiring the world’s largest and most profitable companies to pay taxes in all countries to which they sell goods or services. The new approach would overturn century-old policies that now legally require companies to be physically present in the countries where they are taxed.

While the proposal would apply to other multinationals from many other countries as well, part of it is an attempt to resolve a decades-long dispute between the United States, the European Union and other countries. the world on how to deal with big tech companies, most of them headquartered in the United States.

The Obama and Trump administrations have both refused to consider a digital tax specifically targeted at companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. And until now, countries have not been able to tax profits from goods and services sold under their jurisdiction if the company is not headquartered there. Under the Biden administration, the United States has gone from being the first obstacle to corporate tax reform to championing such transformation, including new taxes on the tech titans of Silicon Valley.

It’s far from a done deal, with Ireland and other tax havens resisting Biden’s proposal, but U.S. officials say they are fully awaiting approval from the G-7 as well as major countries in the G-20s such as Japan, India, Argentina and the South. Africa. On Wednesday, the Biden administration imposed, then immediately suspended, retaliatory tariffs of 25% on six countries – Austria, Britain, India, Italy, Spain and Turkey – which have imposed a tax on digital services which Washington says discriminates against American businesses. This move was interpreted as a warning to accept Biden’s proposal.

“It’s a bargaining ploy,” said Michael Greenberger, an international finance expert at the University of Maryland. “Basically what they’re saying to these countries is that it’s not a free vote for you. There is a significant threat of pain, and we’ll give you six months to think about it.

If approved by G-7 ministers, Biden is expected to sign the deal at his summit next week in Cornwall, England. If an agreement is then reached by G-20 finance ministers at their meeting in July and finally by leaders at the G-20 summit in October, the changes could constitute a virtual revolution in international corporate tax policies. .

And at a time when multilateral trade negotiations have stalled, the next pact could also open the door to new trade deals, some experts say.

“This agreement could be the starting point for the re-emergence of multilateralism in international trade,” said Eduardo Baistrocchi, professor of tax law at the London School of Economics. “The next step could be a new wave of free trade agreements.”

A senior official in the Biden administration said Foreign police that the “two pillars” of the negotiations constitute a compromise. The administration will demand an agreement on a pillar – a minimum global corporate tax of 15% – in exchange for the possibility of taxing US digital giants and other multinationals who often find tax havens where they are only charged a few percentage points.

“We have never had as much momentum as now,” said the official. Such changes are also expected to be approved by Congress, but administration officials believe some Republicans may be on board, and the obstruction rule that has blocked so many laws may well be eliminated by the time the proposal is submitted. to vote, maybe next year. .

For Biden, the new corporate tax plan is integral to his larger goal of reorienting the U.S. and global economy away from big business exploitation and back to work. Biden’s “Made in America” tax plan aims to remove incentives for offshore investment and reverse a trend that although US corporations are the most profitable in the world, the United States receives less tax revenue on the world. corporations as a percentage of GDP than any OECD advanced economy.

However, the problem of the corporate tax shortfall affects all advanced economies. For more than a decade since the Great Recession, major, revenue-strapped countries have sought ways to raise tax revenue for multinationals headquartered in tax havens such as Ireland, Switzerland, Luxembourg. and the Caribbean such as the Cayman Islands. The so-called race to the bottom between countries has dramatically reduced corporate tax rates over the past two decades. The average corporate statutory rate in OECD countries was 32.2% in 2000; by 2020, that figure had fallen to 23.2%, according to the OECD.

“Our goal is to end the global race to the bottom in terms of corporate taxation,” said the administration official. “Every country is made worse by tax competition, especially workers. … When people say they feel like the system is rigged, and when you wonder why we have such extreme inequality, taxation is a big part of the story. The official pointed out that corporate revenues as a percentage of US GDP have increased from an average of 2% in 2000 to 1% in 2018 and 2019. “That’s a third of the OECD average,” said the manager. “And we have to fix it.”

Even before Biden assumed the presidency, the web was slowly closing on personal tax evasion. In recent years, the OECD, in collaboration with more than 100 countries around the world, has adopted new international standards on the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes that have limited the use of tax havens and resulted in more $ 100 billion in additional tax revenue for OECD countries. , according to organization data.

And in 2019, the OECD offers a new wording of how tax rights are distributed among jurisdictions to meet the tax challenges arising from the digitization of the economy. His proposal would allow states to treat certain multinationals as single consolidated entities and tax them on a share of their global profits. based where “real” economic activity takes place. The targeted profits are called “residual” profits or excessive margins greater than 10 to 20%. Biden’s proposal builds on these ideas.

If passed, Baistrocchi said Biden’s plan would be the “first systemic attempt” to redistribute profits and revenues from tax havens and multinational corporations since the 1930s.

Resolutions of the annual general meeting of shareholders Fri, 04 Jun 2021 16:46:38 +0000

The annual general meeting of shareholders of AS Trigon Property Development (registration code: 10106774; hereinafter the “Company”) Took place on June 4, 2021 in Tallinn, Pärnu mnt 18.

The annual general meeting started at 2:00 p.m. 2,608,419 votes represented by the shares of the Company, or 57,9770% of all the votes represented by the shares of the Company, participated in the meeting. Therefore, the annual general meeting was competent to adopt resolutions concerning the items on the agenda.

Resolutions of the Annual General Meeting:

1. Approval of the Company’s annual report for fiscal year 2020

Approve the annual report of the Company for the financial year 2020, in accordance with which the value of the consolidated balance sheet of the Company at December 31, 2020 was 2,497,679 euros and the net profit for the year was 347,893 euros.

2. Appropriation of the result for the 2020 financial year

To transfer the consolidated net profit of the Company for the financial year 2020, in the amount of 347,893 euros to the loss of the previous periods.

3. Appointment of the statutory auditor for the 2021 financial year and determination of the remuneration policy for the Auditor

Appoint AS PricewaterhouseCoopers (registration code: 10142876, address: Pärnu mnt 15, 10141 Tallinn) as auditor of the Company for the financial year 2021. The audit services will be remunerated in accordance with the contract to be established with the auditor to accounts.

4. Extension of the term of office of a member of the Supervisory Board

With regard to the expiration of the mandate of the member of the Supervisory Board of the Company Joakim Johan Helenius, to extend the mandate of the member of the Supervisory Board of the Company Joakim Johan Helenius by five (5) period of one year.

5. Modification of the Company’s articles of association

With regard to the reduction of the Company’s share capital, amend the Articles of Association of the Company and approve the Articles of Association in the wording presented to the general meeting of shareholders.

6. Reduction of the Company’s share capital

Reduce the Company’s share capital under the following conditions:

(i) Reduce the Company’s share capital by 1,849,114.07 euros, from 2,299,020.17 euros to 449,906.10 euros.

(ii) The share capital will be reduced by reducing the book value of the shares: as a result of the reduction, the book value of the Company’s share will decrease by 0.411 euros, from 0.511 euros to 0.10 euros. The number of shares will remain the same (4,499,061);

(iii) When the share capital is reduced, a monetary payment of 0.089 euro per share will be paid to the shareholders. Payments to shareholders are made under the conditions provided for by law;

(iv) The reason for the reduction of the share capital is the fact that the Company does not need, for the moment or in the near future, to hold any share capital within the limit of the registered amount; and

(v) The list of shareholders participating in the share capital reduction will be finalized on June 18, 2021 at 11.59 p.m.

The minutes of the general meeting of shareholders are available on the Company’s web page at

Tomingas hike
Member of the Management Board
+372 66 79 200

]]> The new geopolitics of world trade Fri, 04 Jun 2021 08:11:37 +0000

TTWENTY YEARS As of this week, the share price of a startup led by an obsessive man called Jeff Bezos has fallen 71% year over year. Amazon’s near-death experience was part of the dotcom crash that exposed the pride of Silicon Valley and, along with the $ 14 billion fraud at Enron, shattered trust in American businesses. China, meanwhile, was struggling to privatize its creaky state-owned enterprises, and there were few signs that it could create a culture of entrepreneurship. Instead, the bright hope was in Europe, where a new single currency promised to catalyze a giant, business-friendly integrated market.

Listen to this story

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on ios or Android.

Creative destruction often makes predictions silly, but even by those standards, the post-pandemic business world is radically different from what you might expect two decades ago. Tech companies make up a quarter of the global stock market, and the geographic distribution has become remarkably unbalanced. America and, increasingly, China are on the rise, accounting for 76 of the 100 most valuable companies in the world. Europe’s count has dropped from 41 in 2000 to 15 today.

This imbalance largely reflects American and Chinese skills, and complacency in Europe and elsewhere. This raises two giant questions: why did this happen? And can it last?

By themselves, big companies are no better than small ones. The status of Japan Inc skyrocketed in the 1980s only to collapse. Large companies can be a sign of success, but also of laziness. Saudi Aramco, the world’s second most valued company, is not so much a symbol of $ 2 billion vigor as a desert kingdom’s dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. Even so, the right kind of giant business is a sign of a healthy business ecology in which large, efficient companies are created and constantly swept aside by competition. This is the secret to raising the standard of living in the long run.

One way to capture the dominance of America and China is to compare their share of global output with their share of business activity (defined as the average of their share in global market capitalization, proceeds from public offerings, venture capital funding, “unicorns” – or larger private startups and the world’s top 100 companies). By this yardstick, America accounts for 24% of GDP, but 48% of commercial activity. China represents 18% of GDP, and 20% of turnover. Other countries, with 77% of the world’s population, strike well below their weight.

Part of the explanation is the opportunity wasted by Europe. Political interference and the debt crisis in 2010-12 blocked the continent’s economic integration. Companies have largely failed to anticipate the transition to the intangible economy. Europe has no startups to compete with Amazon or Google. But other countries have also struggled. Ten years ago, Brazil, Mexico and India were on the verge of creating a vast cohort of global companies. Few have emerged.

Instead, only America and China were able to organize the process of creative destruction. Of the 19 companies created over the past 25 years that are now worth more than $ 100 billion, nine are in the United States and eight are in China. Europe does not have one. Even as mature tech giants like Apple and Alibaba attempt to consolidate their dominance, a new set of tech companies including Snap, PayPal, Meituan and Pinduoduo are reaching critical mass. The pandemic has seen a surge of energy in America and China and a fundraising boom. Companies from both countries dominate the frontier of new technologies such as fintech and electric cars.

The magic formula contains many ingredients. A large internal market helps businesses grow quickly. Deep capital markets, venture capitalist networks, and top universities keep the startup pipeline full. There is a culture that exalts entrepreneurs. Chinese tycoons brag about their “996” work ethic: 9:00 am to 9:00 pm, six days a week. Elon Musk sleeps in the Tesla factory. Above all, politics supports creative destruction. America has long tolerated more disturbance than comfortable Europe. After 2000, Chinese leaders let entrepreneurs run wild and laid off 8 million employees in state-owned enterprises.

The recent erosion of this political consensus in the two countries is one of the reasons why this domination could prove to be unsustainable. Americans worry about national decline, as well as low wages and monopolies (about a quarter of S&P 500 deserves an antitrust review, we estimated in 2018). The Economist supports the Biden administration’s goal of promoting competition and extending the social safety net to protect workers affected by disruption. But the danger is that America will continue to drift towards protectionism, industrial policy and, on the left, punitive taxes on capital, which hamper its commercial dynamism.

In China, President Xi Jinping sees large private companies as a threat to the power and social stability of the Communist Party. The fear of tycoons started last year with Jack Ma, Alibaba’s co-founder, and has since spread to the bosses of three other big tech companies. While party officials seek to “guide” incumbent private companies to achieve political goals, such as national self-sufficiency in certain technologies, they are also more likely to shield them from free-wheeling competitors.

The more America and China intervene, the more the rest of the world should worry about the unbalanced geography of world trade. In theory, the nationality of for-profit companies doesn’t matter: as long as they sell competitive products and create jobs, whatever? But if companies are influenced by national governments, the math changes.

As globalization unfolds, feuds are already erupting over where multinational companies produce vaccines, set digital rules and pay taxes. Europe’s hopes of being a regulatory superpower can turn into a fig leaf for protectionism. Others with less influence may erect barriers. To assert its sovereignty, India has banned Chinese social media and hampered US e-commerce companies. It’s the worst of both worlds, depriving local consumers of global innovations and creating barriers that make it even harder for local businesses to grow.

It’s the acorns, not the oaks

It would be a tragedy if only two countries in the world were able to sustain a process of large-scale creative destruction. But it would be even worse if they turned away from it, and other places admitted defeat and put up barricades. The best guarantee of success will be if, in 20 years, the list of the largest companies in the world does not resemble the one today.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the title “Geopolitics and business”

Some complaints about group thinking | Financial Time Fri, 04 Jun 2021 04:00:19 +0000

In his sour parliamentary testimony last week, Dominic Cummings, the former chief adviser to the Prime Minister, blamed many different people and things for the UK’s failure to tackle Covid-19 – including the ‘thought of group “.

Group thinking is unlikely to defend itself. He already has a terrible reputation, not helped by his Orwellian ring, and the term is used so often that I’m starting to worry that we’re having group thought over group thought.

So let’s take a step back. Groupthink was made famous in a 1972 book by a psychologist Irving Janis. He was fascinated by the Bay of Pigs Fiasco in 1961, in which a group of perfectly intelligent people in the administration of John F Kennedy made a series of perfectly ridiculous decisions in support of a botched coup d’état in Cuba. How did it go ? How can groups of smart people do such stupid things?

An illuminating metaphor of Scott Page, author of The difference, a book on the power of diversity, is the Cognitive Toolkit. A good toolbox isn’t the same as a toolbox full of good tools – two dozen premium hammers won’t do the job. Instead, what is needed is variety: a hammer, pliers, saw, choice of screwdriver and more.

This is pretty obvious and, in principle, it should be obvious for decision making too: a group needs a range of ideas, skills, experience and perspectives. Yet when you put three hammers on a hiring board, they’re likely to hire another hammer. This “homophilia” – spending time with people like us – is the original sin of group decision making, and there is no mystery as to how it happens.

But things are getting worse. A problem, studied by Cass Sunstein and Reid Hastie in their book Wiseris that groups intensify existing biases. One study looked at group discussions on then-controversial topics (climate change, same-sex marriage, affirmative action) by groups in Boulder, Colorado, on the left, and Colorado Springs, on the right.

Each group contained six individuals with a range of views, but after discussing these views with each other, the Boulder groups suddenly regrouped to the left and the Colorado Springs Groups similarly grouped to the right, becoming both more extreme and more uniform within the group. In some cases, the emerging point of view of the group was more extreme than the earlier point of view of a single member.

One of the reasons for this is that when surrounded by fellow travelers, people have become more confident in their own opinions. They felt reassured by the support of others.

During this time, people with opposing views tended to remain silent. Few like to be publicly outnumbered. As a result, a false consensus emerged, with potential dissidents censoring themselves and the rest of the group obtaining an inappropriate sense of unanimity.

The Colorado experiments looked at polarization, but it is not just a polarization problem. Groups tend to seek common ground on anything from politics to weather, a fact revealed by “hidden profile” psychology experiments. In such experiments, groups are given a task (for example, choosing the best candidate for a job) and each member of the group is given different information.

One would hope that each individual would share everything they knew, but instead what tends to happen is that people focus, redundantly, on what everyone else already knows, rather than discovering facts known to a single individual. The result is a decision disaster.

These “hidden profile” studies point to the heart of the matter: group discussions are about more than sharing information and making sound decisions. It’s about cohesion – or, at least, finding common ground to discuss.

Reading by Charlan Nemeth No! The power of disagreement in a world that wants to get along, one theme is that while dissent leads to better and stronger decisions, it also leads to discomfort and even distress. The disagreement is precious, but the agreement seems so much more comfortable.

There is no shortage of solutions to the problem of group thinking, but to list them is to understand why they are often overlooked. The first and easiest is to embrace decision-making processes that require disagreement: appoint a “devil’s advocate” whose job it is to be a nonconformist, or practice “red-teaming,” with a group. internal whose task is to play the role of hostile actors (hackers, invaders or simply critics) and find vulnerabilities. Evidence suggests the Red Team works better than having Devil’s Advocate, perhaps because dissent needs force in numbers.

A more fundamental reform is to ensure that there is a real diversity of skills, experiences and perspectives in the room: screwdrivers and saws like hammers. It seems to be deadly difficult.

When it comes to social interaction, the aphorism is wrong: opposites do not attract. We subconsciously surround ourselves with like-minded people.

Indeed, the process is not always unconscious. Boris Johnson’s cabinet could have contained Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt, the two main Tory backbenchers who chair committees Dominic Cummings testified to on group thinking. But this is not the case. Why? Because too often they disagree with him.

The right groups, with the right processes, can make great decisions. But most of us don’t join groups to make better decisions. We join them because we want to belong. Group thinking persists because group thinking is good.

Tim Harford was named the 2020 Wincott Foundation Journalist of the Year. His new book is “How to make the world add up

To pursue @FTMag on Twitter to discover our latest stories first.

New Zealand number two in international house price growth ranking Fri, 04 Jun 2021 00:24:00 +0000

New Zealand’s house price growth is the second fastest in the world, according to an international real estate consultancy.

The Knight Frank Global House Price Index shows that in the first quarter of this year, world house prices rose 7.3% through March 2021. New Zealand hit 22.1% .

This is the fastest rate of increase recorded since the last months of 2006 and reflects the galloping market growth observed in many countries.

Turkey recorded the fastest house price increases for the fifth consecutive quarter, growing 32%.

* Budget 2021: a sudden adjustment in housing prices to come, according to the Minister of Finance
* Record housing price growth “justifies government intervention”
* Hamilton home prices continue to rise

But Knight Frank researcher Kate Everett-Allen said that if inflation was suppressed, Turkey’s real prices rose by around 16% over the year.

In addition, in the top ten were the United States at 13.2 percent, Sweden at 13 percent, Austria at 12.3 percent and Norway at 10.9 percent.

Canada was ranked 11th and Australia 18th with annual growth of 10.8 and 8.3 percent respectively.

There is more and more talk of post-pandemic real estate bubbles.

Abigail Dougherty / Stuff

There is more and more talk of post-pandemic real estate bubbles.

Everett-Allen said that with 13 countries recording double-digit price growth in the past year, it was no surprise that discussions of post-pandemic property bubbles are on the rise.

But authorities were already starting to take action with the introduction of cooling measures in a number of markets, including China, New Zealand, Ireland and Canada, she said.

In New Zealand, the Reserve Bank restored loan-to-value ratios earlier this year. In March, the government announced a series of new real estate and tax policies intended to rule the market.

Everett-Allen said that with government action and fiscal stimulus set to end later this year in a number of markets, buyer sentiment would likely be less exuberant.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Megan Woods and David Parker announced new housing policies to rule the housing market in March.


Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Megan Woods and David Parker announced new housing policies to rule the housing market in March.

“No longer the threat of new variants [of Covid] and stop / start vaccine launches have the potential to put further downward pressure on price growth. “

But the spike in house prices did not hit all countries and there were several large economies where strong price growth remained elusive and sales had yet to gain ground, she said. .

They included Italy, India and Spain, all of which saw lower price growth in the first months of this year than last year. This was due to either strict closures, economic concerns, or oversupply.

New Zealand’s galloping market has already garnered international attention this year.

In April, Bloomberg flagged it as one of the least affordable in the world, while the 2021 annual international housing affordability report Demographia ranked the Auckland market as the fourth least affordable in the world.

CoreLogic’s May data, released on Tuesday, showed price growth was starting to slow, although CoreLogic’s research chief Nick Goodall said it was unlikely to do so at the expected rate. by the Treasury and the Reserve Bank.

But the results of the latest survey from the Real Estate Institute and economist Tony Alexander suggested the market was in a holding position as buyers awaited government clarification on new tax policies.

]]> Pembina Pipeline Corporation declares dividend on common stock Thu, 03 Jun 2021 21:01:00 +0000

CALGARY, AB, June 3, 2021 / PRNewswire / – Pembina Pipeline Corporation (“Pembina” or the “Company”) (TSX: PPL) (NYSE: PBA) today announced that its board of directors has declared a cash dividend on common stock for June 2021 of $ 0.21 per share payable, subject to applicable law, on July 15, 2021 to shareholders of record on June 25, 2021. This dividend is referred to as an “eligible dividend” for Canadian income tax purposes. For non-resident shareholders, dividends from Pembina common shares should be considered “eligible dividends” and may be subject to Canadian withholding tax.

For shareholders receiving their common stock dividends in U.S. funds, the June 2021 the cash dividend should be around US $ 0.1742 per share (before deduction of any applicable Canadian withholding tax) based on an exchange rate of 0.8297. The actual dividend in US dollars will depend on the exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the US dollar on the payment date and will be subject to applicable withholding taxes.

Registration confirmation and payment date policy

Pembina pays monthly cash dividends on its Canadian dollar common shares to shareholders of record on the 25the calendar day of each month (except for the recording date of December, which is the 31st of Decemberst), if, as and when determined by the board of directors. If the registration date falls on a weekend or statutory holiday, the effective registration date will be the previous business day. The dividend payment date is the 15the calendar day of the month following the recording date. If the payment date falls on a weekend or statutory holiday, the business day preceding the weekend or statutory holiday becomes the payment date.

About Pembina

Pembina is a leading provider of transportation and intermediary services serving North America energy sector for over 65 years. Pembina has an integrated network of pipelines that transport a variety of liquid hydrocarbons and natural gas products produced primarily in the west Canada. The Company also has gas collection and treatment facilities; an oil and gas liquids infrastructure and logistics activity; and develop an export terminal business. Pembina’s integrated assets and business operations along most of the hydrocarbon value chain enable it to provide a full range of intermediary and marketing services to the energy industry. Pembina is committed to identifying additional opportunities to connect hydrocarbon production to new demand locations through the development of infrastructure that would extend Pembina’s service offering even further along the hydrocarbon value chain. These new developments will help ensure that hydrocarbons produced in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin and other basins in which Pembina operates can reach higher value markets around the world.

Pembina’s goal:

To be the leader in providing integrated infrastructure solutions connecting global markets:

  • Customers choose us first for reliable and value-added services;
  • Investors receive sustainable total returns among the best in the industry;
  • Employees say that we are the “employer of choice” and value our safe, respectful, collaborative and fair work culture; and
  • Communities welcome us and recognize the net positive impact of our social and environmental commitment.

Pembina is structured into three divisions: the Pipelines division, the Facilities division and the Marketing & New Ventures division.

Pembina common stock is traded on the Toronto and new York scholarships under PPL and PBA, respectively. For more information visit

Forward-looking information and statements

This press release contains certain forward-looking information and statements (collectively, “forward-looking statements”) that are based on Pembina’s current expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions in light of its experience and its perception of historical trends. In this press release, these forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “should”, “could”, “will”, “continue”, “if”, “be”, “expect” and expressions events future or future performance.

In particular, this press release contains forward-looking statements regarding future dividends that may be declared on Pembina common shares, the timing and amount of dividend payments and their tax treatment. These forward-looking statements are made by Pembina based on certain assumptions that Pembina has made with respect to them as of the date of this press release, concerning, among other things: the ability of Pembina and any required third parties to engage effectively with stakeholders; levels of exploration and development activity in the oil and gas industry; the success of Pembina’s operations and growth plans; commodity prices, margins, volumes and prevailing exchange rates; that Pembina’s future operating results will be in line with past performance and management’s expectations in this regard; the continued availability of capital at attractive prices to fund future capital needs related to existing assets and projects, including, but not limited to, future capital expenditures related to expansion, upgrades and maintenance shutdowns; that any third party projects related to Pembina’s growth projects will be sanctioned and completed as scheduled; that all required trade agreements can be concluded; that all required regulatory and environmental approvals can be obtained under the necessary conditions and in a timely manner; that the counterparties to significant agreements will continue to act in a timely manner; that no unforeseen event prevents the execution of contracts; that there are no construction, integrity or other unforeseen costs associated with ongoing growth projects or ongoing operations; prevailing interest rate and tax rate; and the amount of future liabilities related to lawsuits and environmental incidents and the availability of coverage under Pembina’s insurance policies (including with respect to Pembina’s business interruption insurance policy).

Although Pembina believes that the expectations and important factors and assumptions reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date hereof, there can be no assurance that such expectations, factors and assumptions will prove to be correct. Readers are cautioned that events or circumstances could cause actual results to differ materially from those predicted, forecast or projected. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve many assumptions, known and unknown risks, and uncertainties that contribute to the possibility that predictions, forecasts, projections and other forward-looking statements will not occur, which may result in actual performance and financial results in future periods differ materially from projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These known and unknown risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: environment and regulatory decisions and Aboriginal and landowner consultation requirements; the impact of competitive entities and prices; shortage of manpower and equipment; the strength and operations of the oil and natural gas production industry and related commodity prices; breach or default of counterparties to agreements that Pembina or one or more of its affiliates have entered into in the course of its business; , integration problems or others; the impact of competitive entities and prices; the use of key industry partners, alliances and agreements; the strength and operations of the oil and natural gas production industry and related commodity prices; actions of government or regulatory authorities, including changes in tax laws and treatments, changes in royalty rates, climate change initiatives or policies or increased environmental regulation; unfavorable general economic and market conditions in Canada, North America and worldwide, including changes or prolonged weaknesses, as appropriate, in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices, supply / demand trends and levels of overall industry activity; risks associated with generalized epidemics or pandemic outbreaks, including risks associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; changes in credit scores; counterparty credit risk; technology and cybersecurity risks; natural disaster; and certain other risks detailed from time to time in Pembina’s public information documents, including, but not limited to, those detailed under the heading “Risk Factors” in Pembina’s MD&A and Annual Information Form, each for the ‘exercise completed December 31, 2020, each one that can be found at and with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission at and available on the Pembina website at

Forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by the above statements and speak only as of the date of this document. Pembina assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, except as required by applicable law.

SOURCE Pembina Pipeline Corporation

Related links

Analysis: For migrants, red tape turns Italy’s work permit program into a mirage Thu, 03 Jun 2021 11:03:00 +0000

In May 2020, then Italian Minister of Agriculture Teresa Bellanova wept with emotion on television announcing a decree giving thousands of illegal immigrants the opportunity to work legally on farms and as domestic helpers.

However, a year later, the system has hardly progressed, a victim of the tortuous bureaucracy of the country and its struggle to integrate the new arrivals.

Frank Agbontaen, a 30-year-old Nigerian, has been in Italy since 2016. Like several thousand people, he arrived on a rickety boat from Libya.

After surviving for years on undeclared odd jobs and small change in exchange for swept sidewalks, he was offered a job under the regularization program as a housekeeper in Rome.

He applied for the holy grail of a work permit in July. Since then, he says he hasn’t heard anything.

“I had so much hope … I thought everything would be resolved in a few weeks or months,” Agbontaen told Reuters. “It’s so frustrating, I pray to God every day for positive news.”

He is far from alone. In Rome, as of April 15, none of the more than 16,000 applicants had obtained a work permit. In Milan, only 441 had received one, out of more than 26,000 requests, according to data from migrant advocacy group Ero Straniero (I was a foreigner).

In Italy, the harvest is often carried out by Africans and Indians. Home help is mainly entrusted to women from Eastern Europe.

In both sectors, the underground economy and the exploitation of workers are rife, and ex-minister Bellanova, herself a former farm worker, had presented the project on television as a way to make “the invisible.” .. less invisible “.

“These people will have a work permit and we will help them regain their identity and their dignity,” she said.

Coinciding with the first brutal wave of the coronavirus outbreak in Italy, the program was also urgently needed to ensure crops were picked and the elderly received care at home.


As of April 15, however, of the 220,000 people nationwide who had applied for a permit from the Interior Ministry, only 11,000, or 5%, had received one, according to Ero Straniero.

A spokesperson for the Interior Ministry told Reuters that figures updated as of May 31 showed that 14% of applications had been approved by the ministry, which had authorized police to grant a work permit. He was unable to say how many permits had been issued.

Only 1.5% of requests were rejected by the ministry. Eighty-four percent had not been treated.

The dismal progress is emblematic of a chronic Italian problem: legislation proudly announced by politicians but then poorly enforced, if at all enforced.

It’s an obstacle Prime Minister Mario Draghi is well aware of as he tries to streamline state bureaucracy to allow Italy to spend more than € 200 billion ($ 245 billion) in funds. of the European Union for infrastructure projects.

The application for a work permit requires the submission of numerous documents online by the migrant and his potential employer, who must also pay a non-refundable fee of 500 euros.

After the screening of the initial applications, the worker and the employer are called for an interview. If everything is in order, the worker receives a completed form which he must send to the police to receive his permit.

Asked to explain to Parliament why so few requests had been processed, the government cited in April “the complexity of the procedural requirements”, with “multiple intermediate steps”.

These involve local branches of the Interior Ministry known as prefectures, the police, local labor inspectors and the national social security agency.

The May 2020 decree provided for the hiring of 800 temporary workers to help process applications. The first were not actually taken care of until March of this year. The Interior Ministry spokesman said the 800 have now been hired and 721 deployed.

Coronavirus-induced social distancing has also slowed progress, the government said, reducing the number of people who can be called for an interview.


The Home Office website shows that Agbontaen’s request is awaiting approval from the local labor inspectorate, which Reuters tried for days to call for information. No one picked up the phone.

Unlike the former British or French colonial powers, migrants were scarce in Italy until the mid-1980s, when they began to arrive in increasing numbers from Africa and Eastern Europe.

More than three decades later, little progress has been made in integrating them into society at large.

It is extremely rare in Italy to see a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or even a black or Asian bus or taxi driver. Much of it is unemployed or in the informal economy. They are targeted by the Right League, the most popular party in Italy, and its close ally the Brothers of Italy.

Agbontaen, who worked as a tiler in Nigeria, sees the work permit as the key to getting a stable job in construction or a factory. Then he hopes to be joined by his wife and his 10-year-old daughter, who have remained in their country of origin.

“All those years fighting for something that you can never achieve, it drives you crazy, it’s not a good situation,” he said. “But I will never give up.”

($ 1 = 0.8169 euros)

Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Analysis: Fed’s accommodative approach to inflation complicates BOJ debt reduction plans Thu, 03 Jun 2021 02:12:00 +0000 A man walks past the Bank of Japan building in Tokyo, Japan on January 15, 2018. REUTERS / Kim Kyung-Hoon

The US Federal Reserve’s recent pledge to keep interest rates low despite rampant inflation has created new headaches for the Bank of Japan, which is quietly trying to wean the economy off its massive stimulus measures.

The Fed reframed its targets in August amid the pandemic recovery, allowing consumer prices to rise faster than what would have been tolerated by the US central bank in previous cycles.

While the BOJ, a pioneer of quantitative easing, has maintained extremely accommodating parameters for decades, its operations are still guided to a large extent by how Fed policy affects global interest rates.

Fearing that an accommodating Fed would jeopardize Japan’s efforts to keep market rates near zero, the BOJ, at its March policy meeting, sought to honor the US commitment to do so. .

For BOJ policymakers, this meant breathing new life into its elusive 2% inflation target, making it more difficult to pull back from past commitments to maintain a massive stimulus.

The move highlights the enormous influence of Fed decisions on BOJ communication, as Japanese policymakers feel the need to stay in tune with global monetary policy trends shaped by the country’s most powerful central bank. world, according to sources close to his thought.

“This was something the BOJ had to clear up after what the Fed did,” one of the sources said, an opinion echoed by another source.

“The BOJ’s commitment has become more binding and more difficult to eliminate,” said a second source. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.


This accommodating signage comes at a tricky time.

While the BOJ must maintain sufficient support to help the economy weather the pandemic, it is also under pressure to get rid of an unpopular negative interest rate policy that has hurt financial institutions’ profits.

In response to criticism, its massive purchases distort market prices, the BOJ has also “stealthily reduced” its purchases of government bonds and risky assets.

But the Fed’s focus on keeping interest rates close to zero, and the potential tolerance of above-target inflation for years, shatters the BOJ’s hopes of gradually abandoning its commitment to keep pumping money until inflation “stably exceeds” 2%.

By insisting on a commitment identical to that of the Fed, the BOJ may have a harder time slowing money printing even as the economy emerges from the pandemic, suggesting it will be far behind its counterparts in ending the policies of crisis.


The Fed’s new average inflation target, unveiled in August, would see US policymakers tolerate inflation above 2% for years before raising current interest rates close to zero.

The BOJ has put in place a similar but more flexible and mainly symbolic commitment since 2016, in which it commits to continue to increase the amount of liquidity flowing in the economy until inflation stably exceeds the 2%.

Unlike the Fed, the BOJ does not tie the commitment to interest rates. To avoid a binding future policy, the language remains vague, without reference to the pace of asset purchases or the length of time inflation must exceed the target.

This flexibility had allowed the BOJ to distance itself from the target amid growing doubts about its ability to be achieved.

But the Fed’s explicit shift to an average inflation target has now forced the BOJ to give more weight to its own commitment, a setback for the BOJ’s efforts to reverse Governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s “bazooka” stimulus that had failed to trigger inflation.

A month after the Fed’s decision in August, Kuroda said the BOJ’s commitment was in line with the Fed’s thinking on inflation targeting, suggesting that the BOJ’s commitment already incorporated key elements. of the Fed’s new strategy.

Consolidating the alignment, the BOJ this week released a detailed analysis on how imitating the Fed’s strategy would help meet its price target faster.

The analysis estimated that compensating for about two to five years of past low inflation might be more effective, suggesting that Japan will not see an exit from super-easy politics for years, even after inflation. has recovered.

This would come as little surprise to market participants who already expect the policy to remain ultra-flexible for years to come.

But it could also force the BOJ to maintain a commitment that many analysts see as having little effect on changing public perceptions of pricing.

“What has become clear is that it is impossible to control something like inflation expectations, which are difficult to measure,” said Miyako Suda, an academic who served on the board of directors of the BOJ for a decade until 2011.

“The BOJ must offer a more candid assessment of why its massive stimulus package has not worked out as expected.”

Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.