#rapid funding prop firms | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bitfunded · 3 days

Text

Unlocking Opportunities in the Crypto Market with Proprietary Trading Firms

The world of cryptocurrency trading is expanding at a rapid pace, offering new avenues for traders to make substantial profits. One method growing in popularity is proprietary (prop) trading, where traders use a firm's capital to execute trades. In exchange for this opportunity, traders share a percentage of their profits with the firm. Crypto prop trading firms have become especially attractive to individuals eager to capitalize on the volatility and potential of the crypto market without risking their own capital. This article explores how these firms operate, why traders are flocking to them, and what to look for in a crypto prop trading firm.

What is Proprietary Trading?

Proprietary trading occurs when a financial firm or trading company uses its own funds rather than clients’ money to engage in trading activities. These firms often employ experienced traders to execute trades in stocks, bonds, commodities, and now, cryptocurrencies. The goal is simple: make a profit by trading in various markets. Since the firm is risking its capital, it earns from the profits that successful traders generate.

In the world of cryptocurrencies, this model has been adapted to provide opportunities for traders who may not have the necessary capital but possess the skill set required to navigate the often volatile crypto market. Crypto prop trading firms give traders access to significant amounts of capital, in exchange for a share of their earnings. This model benefits both parties: traders get access to higher capital, and firms earn by supporting talented individuals.

Why Choose a Crypto Prop Trading Firm?

For those looking to enter the cryptocurrency market, crypto prop trading firms offer an appealing option. Here are a few reasons why:

Access to Large Capital One of the primary reasons traders join prop firms is access to significantly larger capital pools than they would have on their own. This enables them to take larger positions and potentially increase their returns. In the volatile world of crypto, having more capital can allow traders to better manage risks and seize more opportunities.

Risk Management Support Prop trading firms often provide robust risk management tools, training, and oversight. This means that while traders have autonomy, they are also part of a system designed to protect both the firm's and the trader’s capital. In the often unpredictable world of cryptocurrency, this risk management framework is invaluable.

No Personal Capital at Risk For individuals who want to dive into the world of cryptocurrency trading but don’t want to risk their own money, prop firms offer the ideal solution. Traders are given the freedom to operate using the firm’s capital, limiting their personal financial exposure while still allowing them to participate in the market.

Performance-Based Rewards With prop trading, rewards are based on performance. The better a trader does, the more they earn. Most prop firms offer a profit-sharing model, which means traders only pay the firm a portion of the profits they make. This creates an incentive to focus on performance and market analysis.

Advanced Trading Tools and Resources Prop firms often provide traders with the latest tools and technology to enhance their performance. This includes advanced trading platforms, analytical software, and access to market data. These resources are often costly and out of reach for individual traders but are made available by prop trading firms to ensure their traders have the best chance at success.

What to Look for in a Crypto Prop Trading Firm?

Choosing the right crypto prop trading firm is essential for maximizing success. Here are some key factors to consider:

Reputation and Track Record The first thing to investigate is a firm's reputation and past performance. Make sure they have a proven history of working with successful traders and that they offer fair and transparent conditions for their traders.

Capital Allocation Different firms offer varying levels of capital to their traders. Consider the firm's capital allocation structure to ensure it aligns with your trading goals and strategies.

Profit Sharing Model Look into the profit-sharing percentage that the firm requires. While it's expected that the firm will take a cut of the profits, the percentage should be fair and reasonable for both parties.

Training and Support Some firms provide ongoing training, resources, and mentorship for their traders. If you’re new to crypto trading or want to improve your skills, a firm that invests in its traders' growth could be a good fit.

Technology and Platform Ensure the firm’s trading platform is up to industry standards and offers the features necessary to execute your strategy. Fast execution times and low trading fees are essential for success in the fast-paced cryptocurrency market.

Conclusion

The world ofcrypto prop trading offers traders a unique opportunity to engage in high-volume trading without risking their own capital. With the right skills, access to advanced trading tools, and support from an established firm, traders can maximize their potential in the crypto market. However, choosing the right firm is crucial for success. Ensure that the firm you partner with has a strong reputation, fair profit-sharing models, and robust resources.

If you’re considering a prop trading firm to start or expand your crypto trading career, Bitfunded is a company that provides excellent support, advanced tools, and access to capital, making it an ideal choice for traders looking to maximize their success.

0 notes

amgracy · 4 months

Text

Discover instant funding prop firm, a premier proprietary trading firm. Access immediate capital to trade and boost your trading career. Our streamlined process ensures rapid approval and funding, enabling traders to focus on executing their strategies without delay. More: https://www.thetalentedtrader.com/instant-funding-prop-firm

#instantfundingpropfirm #forexaccounts #trading #forextrading #fundedtraderprograms #proptrading #passpropfirm #propfirms #propfirmchallenge #instantfunding #thetalentedtrader #talentedtrade

#Instant funding prop firm #the talented trader #prop firms #prop firm challenge #what is day trading #funded trading accounts #trading risk management #prop firm trading #cheapest prop firms #proprietary trading firm #prop firms instant funding #traditional sketch #tradingcards #traditional illustration

0 notes

propfirm · 7 months

Text

Accelerate Your Forex Gains with Scalping EA | Prop Firm Master

Experience rapid growth in your trading account with our advanced forex scalping EA. Let Prop Firm Master revolutionize your trading journey. Start boosting your profits now!

#ForexProfit #TradingTools #PropFirmMaster #ScalpingStrateg

1 note · View note

mymudra · 9 months

Text

Unsecured business loans, a beacon in the financial landscape, offer entrepreneurs a strategic and flexible solution to fund their ventures. Presented by various banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), these loans stand out for being collateral-free, making them an appealing choice for unsecured business loan in India looking to run, expand, or initiate operations. Commonly referred to as signature loans, My Mudra's unsecured business loans come with minimal documentation, ensuring a seamless and straightforward application process.

Unlocking the Advantages of Unsecured Business Loans

Streamlined Application: Initiate the application process effortlessly by visiting www.mymudra.com and providing basic details.

Effortless Documentation: Expedite the approval process by submitting KYC documents, company financial details, and registration particulars.

Freedom from Collateral: Embrace the freedom of a collateral-free loan, eliminating the need for additional security.

Flexible Repayment Options: Enjoy a shorter tenure compared to traditional loans, coupled with flexible repayment options tailored to your business's needs.

Rapid Disbursal: Experience the swift disbursal of the approved loan amount within a single day, ensuring timely financial support.

Navigating the Application Process with My Mudra

Embarking on your journey to secure an unsecured business loan with My Mudra is as simple as 1-2-3:

Seamless Online Application: Visit www.mymudra.com, where a few clicks set the application process in motion.

Swift Document Verification: Complete the necessary documentation within a day, ensuring a speedy approval process.

Express Disbursal: Witness the approved loan amount swiftly deposited into your account within 24 hours.

Documents Needed for Unsecured Business Loans

My Mudra simplifies the approval process with minimal documentation requirements. Ensure you have the following readily available:

Proof of Identity:

PAN Card (for Company/Firm/Individual)

Aadhaar Card

Passport

Voter's ID Card

Driving Licence

Proof of Address:

Aadhaar Card

Passport

Voter's ID Card

Driving Licence

Additional Documents:

Bank statements from the previous 6 months

Latest ITR, Balance Sheet, and Profit & Loss account for the preceding 2 years (CA Certified/Audited)

Proof of continuation (ITR/Trade licence/Establishment/Sales Tax Certificate)

Other Mandatory Documents (Sole Prop. Declaration, Certified Copy of Partnership Deed, Certified true copy of Memorandum & Articles of Association, Board resolution)

Interest Rate and Transparent Charges

My Mudra upholds transparency, ensuring no hidden fees for unsecured loan for business The interest rate and charges are as follows:

Unsecured Business Loan Interest Rate: 15%

Business Loan Processing Fee: 1-2%

Other Charges: NIL

Conclusion:

In summary, My Mudra stands as a comprehensive solution for diverse financial needs. This article spotlights the advantages of unsecured business loans, emphasising the user-friendly application process and prompt disbursal provided by My Mudra. Transform your perception of business loans, overcome financial obstacles, and propel your business towards success. Apply for a My Mudra Business Loan today to experience swift approval and disbursal within a day.

#unsecured business loan #unsecured loan for business #unsecured business loan in india #unsecured business loan online #unsecured business loan india

0 notes

ailtrahq · 1 year

Text

SBF was accused of misappropriating customer funds in FTX’s custody. Experts noted that the chances of SBF’s conviction were high. Once seen as the face of cryptocurrencies, disgraced entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) awaits his fate as he gets ready for the criminal trial beginning on 10 October for his role in what many experts have dubbed as one of the biggest financial frauds in American history. Is your portfolio green? Check out the FTT Profit Calculator The 31-year-old faces multiple charges for his alleged involvement in the high-profile collapse and subsequent bankruptcy of FTX [FTT], which was one of the biggest crypto exchanges in the market during its peak. Primarily, he is accused of misappropriating customer funds entrusted with the exchange to prop up his crypto trading firm Alameda Research. A trip down the memory lane According to crypto market data provider Kaiko, FTX made pointed business moves in order to build a foothold in a market otherwise dominated by global behemoths like Binance and Coinbase. FTX had one of the lowest and, therefore, most attractive fees among top crypto trading platforms. A report published last year noted that FTX charged a taker fee of just 0.07% and a maker fee of 0.02%, in comparison to Coinbase’s 0.5% for both. Naturally, lower fees attracted tons of liquidity and individual investors. Apart from cost advantages, the exchange doled out highly-leveraged and innovative derivatives contracts which attracted risk-seeking traders. In fact, FTX enjoyed an impressive derivatives market share at 15%, compared to just 6% in the spot market. Source: Kaiko Nonetheless, the exchange registered monthly volume of nearly $100 billion at its zenith, which was on par with Coinbase. Source: Kaiko FTX’s rise also resulted in a surge in the fortunes of founder and CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. Prior to FTX’s collapse, he was ranked the 41st richest American in the Forbes 400 list and his net worth peaked at $26.5 billion. He spent his fortunes on venture investments, luxury real estate, and even political donations. However, behind the rosy exteriors, was a cobweb of deception and dirty tricks The empire comes crashing down An explosive report by news publication CoinDesk proved to be the undoing of FTX. The investigative story revealed that Alameda Research, FTX’s sister company, was in possession of a significant amount of FTX’s native FTT tokens. So much so, that it had more FTT tokens on its balance sheet than the total market cap of the asset at that time. What heightened scrutiny was the disclosure that Alameda used FTT extensively as collateral for loans issued by FTX. Imagine an entity accepting collateral in the form of assets which its mints natively. This raised suspicion that FTX was funneling client’s funds in custody to extend credit to Alameda, a sign of insolvency. This essentially triggered a bank run on FTX as customers scurried to get their funds out of the exchange. Withdrawal requests worth billions started to overwhelm the trading platform. The world’s largest exchange announced a bailout deal only to back out of it a day later. Meanwhile, FTT was in free fall, losing 80% of its value in two days. FTT’s collapse led to a rapid unwinding of the exchange, with a multi-billion-dollar hole in its balance sheet. Source: Kaiko Eventually, SBF stepped down as CEO of FTX and the exchange filed for bankruptcy protection on the same day. SBF’s empire, which was allegedly built on hard-earned money of unsuspecting traders, came crumbling down. As of 10 March 2023, his net worth was reduced to just $4 million. Kaiko’s research highlighted the profound impact of FTX’s collapse on the broader crypto market. Global exchange liquidity has been cut in half, and market depth is still a long way from restoring to pre-collapse levels. Source: Kaiko Odds stacked against SBF? As SBF goes on trial, talks around the outcome of the case have taken center stage. Former official of the U.S. Securities

and Exchange Commission (SEC) John Reed Stark listed out three reasons which could lead to his conviction. Stark noted that testimonies by high-profile corporate insiders, including Caroline Ellison – the former CEO of Alameda Research, to reduce their own criminal sentences, would play a big part in SBF’s implication. Secondly, the authorities had access to a mountain of incriminating proof against the disgraced tycoon. He particularly praised restructuring officer John J. Ray for his work in gathering all the evidence. Last but not least, Stark blamed the “blabbermouth syndrome” of SBF for his own downfall. His “public-relations campaign” during which he gave numerous interviews could be used by the prosecution to reveal inconsistencies in his statements, the ex-SEC official said.

0 notes

msclaritea · 1 year

Text

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers?s=09

The Billionaire Family Pushing Synthetic Sex Identities (SSI)

The wealthy, powerful, and sometimes very weird Pritzker cousins have set their sights on a new God-like goal: using gender ideology to remake human biology

Jennifer Pritzker and Governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker

"One of the most powerful yet unremarked-upon drivers of our current wars over definitions of gender is a concerted push by members of one of the richest families in the United States to transition Americans from a dimorphic definition of sex to the broad acceptance and propagation of synthetic sex identities (SSI). Over the past decade, the Pritzkers of Illinois, who helped put Barack Obama in the White House and include among their number former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, current Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and philanthropist Jennifer Pritzker, appear to have used a family philanthropic apparatus to drive an ideology and practice of disembodiment into our medical, legal, cultural, and educational institutions.

I first wrote about the Pritzkers, whose fortune originated in the Hyatt hotel chain, and their philanthropy directed toward normalizing what people call “transgenderism” in 2018. I have since stopped using the word “transgenderism” as it has no clear boundaries, which makes it useless for communication, and have instead opted for the term SSI, which more clearly defines what some of the Pritzkers and their allies are funding—even as it ignores the biological reality of “male” and “female” and “gay” and “straight.”

The creation and normalization of SSI speaks much more directly to what is happening in American culture, and elsewhere, under an umbrella of human rights. With the introduction of SSI, the current incarnation of the LGBTQ+ network—as distinct from the prior movement that fought for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and which ended in 2020 with Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that LGBTQ+ is a protected class for discrimination purposes—is working closely with the techno-medical complex, big banks, international law firms, pharma giants, and corporate power to solidify the idea that humans are not a sexually dimorphic species—which contradicts reality and the fundamental premises not only of “traditional” religions but of the gay and lesbian civil rights movements and much of the feminist movement, for which sexual dimorphism and resulting gender differences are foundational premises.

Through investments in the techno-medical complex, where new highly medicalized sex identities are being conjured, Pritzkers and other elite donors are attempting to normalize the idea that human reproductive sex exists on a spectrum. These investments go toward creating new SSI using surgeries and drugs, and by instituting rapid language reforms to prop up these new identities and induce institutions and individuals to normalize them. In 2018, for example, at the Ronald Reagan Medical Center at the University of California Los Angeles (where the Pritzkers are major donors and hold various titles), the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology advertised several options for young females who think they can be men to have their reproductive organs removed, a procedure termed “gender-affirming care...."

Dear God. Our world is now filled with mad scientist, billionaire types. This has to stop.

1 note · View note

mostlysignssomeportents · 4 years

Text

Ant, Uber, and the true nature of money

The US election news has largely overshadowed a seismic moment in global finance: Ant, a fintech company that spun out of Alibaba/Alipay, was scheduled to have the world's largest IPO, topping even Aramco, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund.

Then Chinese regulators canceled it.

As Yves Smith writes in her excellent Naked Capitalism breakdown, the consensus narrative on this is capricious Chinese regulators changed their minds and jerked the rug out from under Ali's billionaire owner Jack Ma.

The reality is a lot chewier.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/11/china-takes-step-against-securitization-consumer-borrowing-with-suspension-of-ant-ipo.html

To understand it, you need to understand the difference between the Chinese and American "money story." In the US, there is widespread, unquestioning faith in the fairytale that money predates the state and is separate from it.

In this story, people come together to trade but are plagued by disparate goods: if I want to pay for your chickens with a cow, how do you make change? They spontaneously decide that something (gold?) is money and price their cows and chicks in it.

Then, governments come along tax our gold away, and then to add insult to injury, governments abandon gold and insist that paper is as good as gold, print too much of it and crash the economy!

This probably sounds familiar to you, but it's just not true.

The actual historical reality, supported by history, archaeology and anthropology, is that governments created money by creating tax. The first "money" was the Babylonian ledgers that recorded how much of their crops farmers owed to the state and their creditors.

Money took a leap forward with imperial conquest: emperors solved the logistical problem of feeding and billeting their occupying soldiers by charging the occupied a tax that had to be paid for in coins stamped with the emperor's head.

They paid the soldiers in these coins, and demanded that their conquered populations somehow get the coins in order to pay their tax, with violent consequences if the tax wasn't paid. So the people sold food and other necessities to soldiers to get the coins.

Money, in other words, is how states provision themselves, and it derives its value from the fact that you have to pay your taxes in it. Governments spend money into existence by buying labor and goods from the public, and then tax it out of existence once a year.

The money the government spends, but does not tax, is the public's money - the money left over for us to transact. All the money in circulation is the sum total of all the money the government spent but didn't tax - that is, the government's deficit is the public's asset.

When governments run "balanced budgets" (or budget surpluses), they remove money from the economy, leaving the public with less to spend. That can be a good thing - a way to fight inflation, which is when too much money chases too few assets.

Low government spending slows growth by taking away the private sector's ability to spend. When the private sector is at full employment, when it is buying all the stuff that's for sale, you need to do something to keep inflation at bay.

During WWII, the USG competed with the private sector for stuff and labor. Uncle Sam spent lots of new money into existence, paying people to build munitions - but then convinced people to buy war bonds, burying that new money for years to come.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/taxes-for-revenue-are-obsolete.html

But when governments run so lean that there isn't enough money in the economy for the private sector to buy the stuff it needs, it seeks out other forms of money, like bank loans (which generate interest income for shareholders - one reason the market likes austerity).

In theory, bank lending is tightly regulated. Banks are the government's fiscal agents, creatures of the state, only able to trade because of a government charter. But when there isn't enough money in the system, unregulated banks spring into existence.

Another word for "unregulated bank" is "fintech" (h/t Riley Quinn).

And now we're back to China and the money story. Chinese finance regulators have always treated money as a public utility, to be spent or withdrawn to accomplish public purposes.

During the country's rapid industrialization, regulators loosened the flow of money to allow for rapid capacity-building, directing the country's productive capacity to building factories that would multiply that capacity.

But when they shut off the spigot and told factory owners that their future growth would come from making and selling things, the wealthy rebelled and sought out money from unlicensed banks or banks that were willing to break the rules.

This led to a string of subprime debt crises over the past five years, as regulators crushed these wildcat money-creators as fast as they popped up.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-02-17/china-s-600-billion-subprime-crisis-is-already-here

China's 1% fought back. They emigrated:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/08/rich-chinese-flee/

They used cryptocurrency (aka fintech) to evade capital controls, inflating the Bitcoin price-bubble and the Vancouver/Sydney/etc real-estate price bubble as they laundered their money and stashed it in safe-deposit boxes in the sky:

https://www.ft.com/content/bad16a88-d6fd-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

As China's shadow economy ballooned it also grew in criminality. There was the wave of Chinese debt-kidnappings, which became so widespread that hostage-taking was described as "China's small claims court."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/08/chinas-police-think-hostages-arent-their-problem/

No wonder regulators fought back.

China's regulators didn't win a decisive victory, but they retained enormous control over their money-supply, and that REALLY paid off when the pandemic hit and they suspended all debts, rents, and taxes and mothballed the entire productive economy.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/01/cant-pay-wont-pay/#jubilee-now

Contrast with the US where the finance sector is an industry, not a public utility. Finance flexed its political muscle and diverted nearly the whole stimulus to itself, then crushed the productive economy by demanding debt service and rents.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/09/michael-hudson-how-an-act-of-god-pandemic-is-destroying-the-west-the-u-s-is-saving-the-financial-sector-not-the-economy.html

The ability to use finance as a utility is one of China's crucial assets, and it defends that asset ferociously. And THAT'S why the Ant IPO got killed. Ant's major source of income is short-term, high-interest lending, what Chinese regulators call "pawnbrokering."

China's pawnbrokers are a $43B shadow banking sector, and the country's regulators have been cracking down on them for the past year.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-12/china-is-said-to-scrutinize-43-billion-pawn-shop-lending-boom

$43B is a drop in the bucket of China's shadow economy (valued at $9T!), but it has real metastatic potential.

Ant's innovation is to fintechify the pawnbroker industry, by tying it to apps (on the front end) and to a US-style debt-brokerage (on the back end).

IOW: Ant's business model is that desperate people use an app to request and quickly receive high-risk, high-interest loans.

Then Ant sells the loans to "investors" (AKA "securitization"). Converting debts into income streams for third parties is the true basis of the finance industry. It's the means by which socially useless intermediaries extract ever-mounting rents from the productive economy.

And as Smith writes in her breakdown, the fact that Chinese finance regulators weren't going to let Ant explode his mass-scale, app-based payday-lending pawnbrokerage is not a surprise. They've been telling Jack Ma this for MONTHS, publicly and privately.

Ma thought he could simply bull his way past the Chinese regulators - that because he runs Alibaba and its subsidiaries, that they would defer to him. But the whole point of a finance regulator is NOT to let the finance sector write its own rules.

That's because bankers will cheerfully set the whole economy on fire to turn a buck (see, e.g., America).

Ant was on track for the largest IPO in world history due to investors' appetite for converting Chinese money from a public utility to a private enrichment vehicle.

So yeah, you're goddamned right the Chinese regulator wasn't going to let him do it. Their whole JOB is to not let him do it.

If you read this far, you may be asking yourself why, if governments don't need taxes to fund programs, they bother to tax at all?

There are two important reasons. The first is to fight inflation, by removing existing money from circulation so that when the government spends new money into existence to pay for the things it needs, that money isn't bidding against the existing supply.

But the other reason is to deprive the wealthy of the power that money brings, lest they use that power to pervert policy. Jack Ma's billions are what got him to the brink of a disastrous IPO for his unregulated bank.

And the US election demonstrates just how badly public policy fares when concentrated money is brought to bear on it for parochial purposes. Take Prop 22, the California ballot initiative to allow Uber and Lyft to misclassify their employees as independent contractors.

No on Prop 22 is a no-brainer. Vast numbers of gig workers are full-time employees, not contractors, and Lyft and Uber and other gig economy companies have pioneered labor misclassification as a tactic for paying literal starvation wages.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/14/final_ver2/#prop-22

And yet, Prop 22 passed, thanks to the largest-ever spending on any ballot initiative in California history: $205 million ($628,854/day!), spent pn 19 PR firms (including Big Tobacco's cancer-denial specialists).

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/proposition-22-california-uber-lyft-gig-employee/

The spend included a bribe to the NAACP Chair's consultancy that made sub-minimum wage jobs with no benefits for people of color (the majority of gig workers) seem like a blow for racial justice.

All told, Uber/Lyft's campaign outspent 49 out of 53 CA House races COMBINED.

And it was a bargain. Lyft and Uber have stolen $413m from California's employment insurance fund since 2014 - and that's just one cost they ducked through this victory. Far more important are the savings they'll realize on worker safety and job-related death claims.

The gig economy companies are the epitome of the financial economy destroying the productive economy. None of these companies turn a profit, after all - all they do is destroy actual, profitable businesses.

Currently the entire restaurant sector is being laid to waste by Postmates and Uber Eats (even as both lose vast sums):

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/19/we-are-beautiful/#man-in-the-middle

And the workers who lost out with Prop 22 are being "chickenized" - having all the risk of operating a business shifted onto their side of the ledger:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/14/poesy-the-monster-slayer/#stay-on-target

(No surprise, one of Prop 22's signature achievements was denying workers the right to unionize).

The desperation of chickenized workers is downright dystopian:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/02/free-steven-donziger/#phone-trees

and chickenization (not automation) is the major cause of falling wages:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/17/on-face-interaction/#zombie-robots

Lyft, Uber, Postmates, and the whole gamut of gig economy companies are all haemorrhaging money. Uber alone lost $4.7B in the first half of 2020. That's how you can tell they aren't tech companies: tech companies profited during the pandemic.

Gig-economy companies aren't part of the productive economy - they're part of the finance economy. They rely on investors, not profits from delighted customers, to stay afloat. They make nothing. They destroy everything: workers' lives, productive businesses.

They will never be profitable. Ever.

Take Uber. The company only exists because the Saudi royals amassed so much money that they could bend reality. The "Saudi Vision 2030" plan calls for the creation of new sources of post-oil wealth.

To that end, the Saudis have poured money into the Softbank VC fund, which then supported global-scale, money-losing, predatory businesses in the hopes of securing a monopoly (or, failing that, unloading the company onto dazzled suckers).

When the company IPOed last year, it had already lost $10b. It loses $0.41 on every dollar you spend on your fare. And yet, the Saudis got away clean, off the backs of investors who assumed that a pile of shit this big must have a pony under it somewhere.

Some believed the company's lies about the imminence of self-driving cars. Uber is not going to make a self-driving car.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/30/death-to-all-monopoly/#pogo-stick-problem

Some believed the company's lies about profitability via growth. It can't grow to profitability. By its own disclosures, profitability depends on every public transit system in the world shutting down and being replaced by Ubers. #Nagahappen.

https://48hills.org/2019/05/ubers-plans-include-attacking-public-transit/

The Saudi strategy - and its punishing, economy-destroying reality-distortions - are exemplary of what happens when government let too much money accumulate in unaccountable, private hands. Prop 22 will kill and starve workers, and the public will pick up the pieces.

The businesses that profit from these deaths and immiseration will fail anyway, but not before their major backers and top execs make hundreds of millions or billions.

Recall: the Ant IPO was set to smash the existing record: Saudi Aramco (AKA the money behind Uber).

Meanwhile, all the blood and treasure squandered on Prop 22 - the $205m spent on the Yes side, the $20 spent by unions on the No side - won't save Uber or other gig economy companies.

Not only are they bleeding money, but as Edward Ongweso Jr explains, "Uber is losing legal challenges in France, Britain, Canada, Italy," turning drivers into employees or allowing "lawsuits reclassifying them as such."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3annmb/proposition-22-passes-in-california-but-uber-and-lyft-are-only-delaying-the-inevitable

And other US states - NY, MA, NJ - are working to end the misclassification of Uber drivers and other gig workers.

Permitting Uber and other gig economy companies to flout the law did not make the economy better. All it did was transfer more money to the wealthy.

And the money they wealthy amass is converted to political power, usurping money's role as a public utility and converting it to a means to seek private gains at public expense.

#pluralistic

58 notes · View notes

sataniccapitalist · 4 years

Link

President Donald Trump has been sacking federal watchdogs at the speed of a bullet train. In just a six-week period in April and May, the President fired five Inspectors General of federal agencies. In last Friday night’s coup d’état, Attorney General William Barr, acting as consigliere for the President, ousted the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutor that oversees prosecutions of Wall Street banks in that district. The privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is in charge of the bulk of the Fed’s bailout programs, also resides in that district.

Barr and the President want to put a man with zero experience as a prosecutor in charge of that office, Jay Clayton, who currently heads the Securities and Exchange Commission which has only civil enforcement powers. Clayton represented 8 of the 10 largest Wall Street banks in the three years before going to the SEC as a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell.

Unfortunately, watchdogs and prosecutors are what American citizens need the most right now as vast sums of money are unaccounted for at both the Treasury and Federal Reserve.

The stimulus bill known as the CARES Act was signed into law by the President on March 27, 2020. It called for “Not more than the sum of $454,000,000,000…shall be available to make loans and loan guarantees to, and other investments in, programs or facilities established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system that supports lending to eligible businesses, States, or municipalities.” In addition, if the Treasury had any of its $46 billion left over that Congress had allotted in the CARES Act to assist airlines or national security businesses, that was to be turned over to the Fed as well.

The CARES Act was passed almost three months ago at the outset of the worst economic upheaval since the Great Depression. One would have thought that the urgency with which Congress acted to pass the legislation would have resulted in rapid deployment of the $454 billion to the Fed to help shore up the economy.

But according to data released this past Thursday by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury has turned over just $114 billion of the $454 billion that was allocated to the Fed by Congress. The Federal Reserve’s weekly balance sheet data release, known as the H.4.1, showed a line item titled “Treasury contributions to credit facilities” and it showed a balance of just $114 billion.

A footnote on the H.4.1 explained exactly which Fed bailout programs had received the money from the Treasury:

“Amount of equity investments in Commercial Paper Funding Facility II LLC of $10 billion, Corporate Credit Facilities LLC of $37.5 billion, MS [Main Street] Facilities LLC of $37.5 billion, Municipal Liquidity Facility LLC of $17.5 billion, and TALF II LLC of $10 billion, and credit protection in the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility of $1.5 billion.”

That leaves $340 billion of the $454 billion unaccounted for.

The President’s economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, explained at a press briefing before the signing of the legislation, why the Fed was to get this vast sum of money. The money would be used as equity investments by the Fed in Special Purpose Vehicles that would use the money as “loss absorbing capital,” meaning that taxpayers would eat the first $454 billion in losses. The Fed would then be free to leverage this money up by a factor of 10 to create $4.54 trillion in bailout programs.

Fed Chairman Powell made an unprecedented appearance on the Today show on March 26 and explained the plan like this:

Powell: “In certain circumstances like the present, we do have the ability to essentially use our emergency lending authorities and the only limit on that will be how much backstop we get from the Treasury Department. We’re required to get full security for our loans so that we don’t lose money. So the Treasury puts up money as we estimate what the losses might be…Effectively $1 of loss absorption of backstop from Treasury is enough to support $10 of loans.”

The writers of the CARES Act legislation apparently expected that the Fed might want to keep some of its money transactions a secret because Section 4009 of the CARES Act suspends the Freedom of Information Act for the Fed and allows it to conduct its meetings in secret until the President says the coronavirus national emergency is over.

Both Powell and the Fed’s Vice Chairman for Supervision, Randal Quarles, have repeatedly stated to Congress in hearings that the recipients of these bailout programs would be transparent to the American people. Last Tuesday and Wednesday, Fed Chairman Powell made his semi-annual appearances before the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committee. He stated the following to both Committees regarding the Fed’s emergency bailout facilities:

“Many of these facilities have been supported by funding from the CARES Act. We will be disclosing, on a monthly basis, names and details of participants in each such facility; amounts borrowed and interest rate charged; and overall costs, revenues, and fees for each facility. We embrace our responsibility to the American people to be as transparent as possible, and we appreciate that the need for transparency is heightened when we are called upon to use our emergency powers.”

But this is the Fed’s web page that shows the disclosures being made to Congress under the facilities that the Fed has designated as emergency lending facilities under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. There are 11 programs listed. Just three of the programs, or 27 percent of the total, have provided the actual transaction data showing specific loans to specific recipients.

Those programs are the Secondary Market Corporation Credit Facility, which has spent the bulk of its money buying up Exchange Traded Funds sponsored by BlackRock, the investment manager that the Fed hired to oversee the program; the Municipal Liquidity Facility which has made just one loan of $1.2 billion to the state of Illinois because the terms are so onerous in this program that is supposed to be helping state and local governments survive the pandemic shutdowns; and the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility, which provided $5.3 billion or 9 percent of its total outlays to a tiny New Jersey Bank that has been cited by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for “unsafe or unsound banking practices.”

But this list of 11 bailout facilities that the Fed is operating is hardly the full picture. On September 17, 2019 the Fed began making hundreds of billions of dollars a week in super low cost repo loans to the trading units of Wall Street’s mega banks. Those loans are ongoing and are currently being made at an interest rate of just 1/10th of one percent interest. Since September of last year, the Fed has made more than $9 trillion cumulatively in these loans. It has not announced one scintilla of information on what specific Wall Street firms have received this money or how much they individually received.

The Fed has also made multiple loans through its Discount Window to Wall Street banks. The Fed has not released the names of these banks or how much they needed to borrow. The Fed has yet to explain how it can continuously be telling the American people that the Wall Street banks are “well capitalized” while it needs to continue to make these lender-of-last-resort loans.

The Federal Reserve has also set up a liquidity facility to make massive foreign central bank dollar swaps to create liquidity for those central banks to buy dollar-denominated assets and help prop up markets. Last Thursday’s H.4.1 shows the dollar swap facility has a current balance of $352 billion. The facility’s balance had been as high as $449 billion as of May 27.

According to the Government Accountability Office’s audit of the Fed that was conducted after the 2008 financial crisis, this is one of the uses of those dollar swap lines back then:

“In October 2008, according to Federal Reserve Board staff, the Federal Reserve Board allowed the Swiss National Bank [the central bank of Switzerland] to use dollars under its swap line agreement to provide special assistance to UBS, a large Swiss banking organization. Specifically, on October 16, 2008, the Swiss National Bank announced that it would use dollars obtained through its swap line with FRBNY [Federal Reserve Bank of New York] to help fund an SPV [Special Purpose Vehicle] it would create to purchase up to $60 billion of illiquid assets from UBS.”

UBS is a major investment bank and trading house and a major player on Wall Street. It purchased the large U.S. retail brokerage firm, PaineWebber, in 2000. The UBS Dark Pool, the equivalent of a thinly regulated stock exchange operating internally within UBS, has been one of the largest traders in Wall Street bank stocks.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors has put the New York Fed in charge of the bulk of these bailout programs. Its conflicts are legion. (See related articles below.) It’s time for Congress to stop the Fed from repeating its Big Lie that it’s going out of its way to be transparent and force it to cough up the names and dollars amounts of the recipients of these loans.

These Are the Banks that Own the New York Fed and Its Money Button

Is the New York Fed Too Deeply Conflicted to Regulate Wall Street?

The New York Fed Is Exercising Powers Never Bestowed on It by any Law

Instead of Draining the Swamp, the Swamp Is Draining the U.S. Treasury via the New York Fed

The Man Who Advises the New York Fed Says It and Other Central Banks Are “Fueling a Ponzi Market”

4 notes · View notes

science-criticaltheory · 5 years

Text

Superpredators by Shaoul Sussman

Amy Swan

Earlier this year, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, reported that Amazon, one of the most valuable corporations in the world, paid no federal taxes on a supposed $11.2 billion in profits in 2018. Many Americans felt outraged, and shortly thereafter Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced a plan to force companies like Amazon to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

But in this case, the outrage was somewhat misplaced. We should not be astonished that Amazon pays no taxes, for the simple reason that it doesn’t actually turn a profit. While the company used accounting techniques to show a positive cash flow on paper, its zero-dollar tax bill more accurately reflects the nature of the business.

Today, many firms, not just Amazon, have adopted a growth strategy based on rapid expansion and negative cash flow. They are propped up by investors and by low interest rates that provide cheap and easy access to capital. They can’t be unprofitable forever, the thinking goes, and they must have an exit strategy, even if they don’t share it publicly. Until then, they continue to hemorrhage cash in their quest for an ever greater market share. The orthodox narrative on Wall Street is that these firms are reinvesting what would otherwise be profits, instead of sharing them with investors and shareholders. This narrative suggests that we are witnessing one of the greatest wealth transfers in the history of capitalism. By investing all their profits back into the firm, these companies are essentially transferring wealth from their investors to us, the consumers.

However, it’s unclear how, or even whether, that’s actually happening. Selling below cost is a classic way for aspiring monopolists to seize market share from smaller competitors who can’t afford to consistently lose money. This technique, known as predatory pricing, is bad for consumers, and the economy as a whole, because it drives companies out of the market not because they’re less competitive or efficient, but because they don’t have enough funds to survive without turning a profit. That’s why predatory pricing is illegal under federal antitrust law.

Today the U.S. economy is rife with spectacularly valuable corporations that fail to turn a profit, relying on the continuing faith of investors. It’s not just Amazon: Uber, Netflix, and WeWork are some of the many other examples. To the average person, these companies appear to be using super-low prices to gain market share. But if predatory pricing is illegal, how can this be happening?

The answer is that what the average person thinks about Amazon’s business strategy doesn’t matter, because the Supreme Court has all but defined predatory pricing out of existence. Taking cues from the conservative law and economics movement, the Court has held that the strategy is irrational as a matter of economic theory, because for it to pay off, the monopolist will have to recoup today’s losses by raising prices dramatically in the future. But that won’t work, the logic goes, because when they do, competitors will swoop in and offer the same service or product at lower prices, frustrating the entire scheme. Under that thinking, the Court has set up rules making it nearly impossible to prove that predatory pricing is happening.

But the Court and most antitrust scholars have been making a systematic mistake. The prevailing doctrine assumes that there is only one way for a company to recoup its losses once it has cornered the market: raising prices. It ignores the other half of the profit equation: costs. This is a serious error, because giants like Amazon have tremendous power to lower costs by squeezing other parties, like employees and suppliers. When you take both costs and prices into account, predatory pricing begins to look much more rational, and therefore more common, than the courts have imagined.

To continue reading click here

#divergence of power #billionare class

1 note · View note

berniesrevolution · 6 years

Photo

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

Every month, tenants in more than 14,000 California rental properties fork over huge portions of their paychecks to Blackstone, a Wall Street asset-management company that’s notoriously reluctant to perform maintenance duties. This year, Blackstone has been throwing millions of dollars of that money into the fight against Proposition 10, a ballot measure that would pave the way for rent control across the state.

Or to put it another way: a massive corporation is using working people as ATMs, and then leveraging the money it extracts from them to purchase political influence, thus protecting its ability to continue wringing renters dry — all while rents skyrocket, the eviction and homelessness crises worsen, and the average working-class Californian’s standard of living plummets.

The corporation’s behavior is no surprise; giant companies have been known to interfere in American politics from time to time. But it’s worth remarking on in this instance, because the stakes are so high and the outcome is so uncertain. 41 percent of Californians support the rent control ballot measure, 38 percent oppose it, and 21 percent remain undecided. The next few days will feature a dramatic showdown between tenants and billionaires. There’s no telling who will emerge victorious.

Blackstone is not alone in its opposition to Prop 10. The initiative to defeat the ballot measure is being fundedto the tune of $77.5 million, mostly by large landlords, for-profit speculative developers, and real estate investment trusts. Prop 10 would repeal California’s Costa-Hawkins law, a draconian anti-tenant piece of legislation, and allow cities to implement comprehensive rent control policies. That, of course, would undermine capitalists whose entire business model hinges on making buildings and land more expensive and more profitable.

Still, Blackstone is the anti-Prop 10 campaign’s largest single contributor. So how did the Wall Street private-equity firm break into the rental business to begin with? The answer has to do with another Wall Street phenomenon — the 2008 housing crisis.

As a wave of foreclosures swept across California, Blackstone and other big landlords gobbled up owner-occupied properties at an alarming rate, transforming them into lucrative rental properties. Since Costa-Hawkins prohibits municipalities from extending rent control protections to new tenants in newer units, every time a tenant moves out they’ve been able to jack up the rent in preparation for the new tenant — at least on units built after 1995. This has contributed to soaring rents, especially in working-class areas, as the constant tenant turnover creates perpetual fresh opportunities for price gouging. Cue rapid gentrification and large-scale displacement.

Blackstone is flush with cash. Among its many other sources of profit, it not only rakes in an ever-growing amount in rent from tenants of its properties, but the Trump administration ensured that it received a $1 billion subsidy via Fannie Mae in 2017. And since it’s a sprawling asset-management company, Blackstone also has access to funds unrelated to its housing investments, including the pensions of California public employees. As the Guardian reported, Blackstone has been funding its anti-Prop 10 lobbying by tapping profits on “pools of capital from investors, which include dozens of state and local pension systems, and public university endowments.” This effectively means that “the opposition to the rent control initiative is being bankrolled by everyone from San Francisco municipal workers to university employees to public school teachers — all of whose retirement savings are in the Blackstone funds.”

So let’s get this straight. A multibillion-dollar Wall Street private-equity corporation took advantage of the foreclosure crisis to become the largest single-family home landlord in California, contributing to rising rents all across the state, and is now using not only working people’s hard-earned rent money but also taxpayer subsidies and public employees’ pensions to fund a massive campaign against a ballot measure that would give cities the right to control the spiral of rents in the state. Is that correct?

“Yes,” says Will Shattuc, who’s helping to lead a campaign for Prop 10 with the East Bay chapter of Democratic Socialists of America. “What it always comes back to is that giant corporations do not have our interests in mind, ever. It’s never been about providing quality homes, stability for renters, even any sort of effective service. They’re just squeezing people in whatever way they can.”

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the left #jacobin magazine #jacobin #rent control #tenant rights #progressive #progressive movement

51 notes · View notes

bitfunded · 3 days

Text

Mastering the Future of Finance: Crypto Prop Trading Firms

The world of finance is evolving at a rapid pace, and nowhere is this more evident than in the rise of cryptocurrency. The demand for innovative trading solutions has led to the emergence of crypto proprietary (prop) trading firms. These firms play a crucial role in shaping the future of digital asset trading. They provide the platform, resources, and expertise for traders to leverage cryptocurrency market opportunities.

In this article, we’ll explore the concept of crypto prop trading, the benefits of joining a crypto prop trading firm, and what to consider before diving into this high-risk, high-reward world.

Understanding Crypto Prop Trading

In traditional proprietary trading, firms invest their own capital rather than handling client investments. Traders employed by prop trading firms are given access to the company’s resources, tools, and funds to engage in high-frequency trading, arbitrage, or directional bets on market trends. Profits are split between the firm and the trader based on a pre-determined percentage.

Crypto prop trading operates similarly but is exclusively focused on the cryptocurrency market. It involves trading assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and various altcoins. Traders at a crypto prop trading firm analyze the market, use advanced algorithms, and employ sophisticated risk management strategies to generate profits.

Given the volatility and unpredictability of crypto markets, prop trading offers substantial opportunities for both high gains and steep losses.

Key Benefits of Crypto Prop Trading

Access to Capital One of the most significant benefits of joining a crypto prop trading firm is access to substantial capital. In crypto markets, a well-funded account can amplify profits, allowing traders to take larger positions and benefit from market swings. Firms typically provide traders with a portion of their profits, keeping the rest to cover operating expenses and reinvest in trading activities.

Risk Management Expertise Crypto markets are notorious for their volatility, and managing risk is key to success. Prop trading firms have established risk management protocols, providing traders with the guidance they need to minimize potential losses. These firms often use sophisticated tools to monitor market trends and limit exposure, helping traders make informed decisions.

Advanced Trading Tools and Technology Another advantage is access to cutting-edge technology. Proprietary firms invest heavily in high-speed algorithms, data analytics, and blockchain analysis tools to stay ahead in the market. Traders without access to these advanced tools may find it harder to execute successful strategies on their own. A crypto prop trading firm will offer its traders these tools to ensure competitiveness.

Profit Sharing and Learning Opportunities Traders at a prop firm typically earn a share of the profits they generate, incentivizing high performance. Many firms also offer structured training programs to develop traders' skills, particularly when it comes to understanding market patterns, refining trading strategies, and enhancing technical expertise. New traders can benefit greatly from the mentorship provided in these environments.

Things to Consider Before Joining a Crypto Prop Trading Firm

Profit Split While firms provide traders with access to large amounts of capital, they also expect a share of the profits. Before joining a prop firm, it’s crucial to understand the profit-sharing model. Depending on the agreement, a trader could receive anywhere from 50% to 90% of the profits, with the firm retaining the rest.

Risk and Loss Management Trading in the cryptocurrency market is risky, and losses are inevitable. Prop firms typically offer a set risk limit, meaning traders can only lose a specific percentage of the firm’s capital. However, in some cases, traders might be held personally accountable for losses beyond this limit. Understanding the risk policies is essential before committing to a firm.

Performance Expectations Prop trading firms are performance-driven environments. They often set strict targets for traders, and those who fail to meet them might face job insecurity. Aspiring traders must be prepared for the pressure of delivering consistent results, particularly in volatile markets like crypto.

Regulatory Considerations The regulatory landscape surrounding cryptocurrencies is still developing. Traders and firms must stay up-to-date with the latest laws and regulations in different countries. Non-compliance can result in fines, shutdowns, or legal action. It’s crucial to ensure that the firm you work with operates within a well-defined legal framework.

Why Crypto Prop Trading is Growing

The surge in the popularity of cryptocurrencies has been driven by their decentralized nature and the potential for significant returns. As the digital economy continues to expand, crypto prop trading is expected to grow in demand. Traders are drawn to the flexibility, access to capital, and the ability to generate high profits in relatively short periods.

Moreover, the introduction of decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms and the rise of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have expanded the opportunities available in the crypto market. Crypto prop trading firms that stay on top of these trends will likely continue to flourish.

Conclusion

For those looking to capitalize on the lucrative yet unpredictable world of cryptocurrencies, joining a crypto prop trading firm can be a powerful way to gain access to resources, expertise, and large capital reserves. However, as with any financial endeavor, it's crucial to understand the risks involved and to carefully choose the right firm.

If you're serious about entering the world of crypto prop trading, consider working with established names in the industry like Bitfunded, which provides traders with the tools and capital needed to succeed in the digital finance revolution.

0 notes

jakibrokerecn247 · 3 years

Text

The 10 Scariest Things About ranking brokerow

Advantages of applying ECN account

1. Secrecy of trades

Privateness and basic safety of Forex trades will be the foremost advantage of utilizing ECN accounts. Axi :: brokerzy forex There are many players while in the Forex current market and every participant ought to take pleasure in utmost privateness and basic safety of their funds. This significant amount secrecy is possible since the broker would only be performing to be a intermediary on the market instead of a market place marker. So when a trader helps make trade on an ECN community, he stays incredibly secure and his trades can neither be distinguished nor traced by Other people on the market.

2. Trade continuity

Continuity of trade is yet another fantastic gain by several traders who are working with such a account. There is absolutely no break necessary or skilled among trades. If you have an ECN account, you might be permitted to trade during events and information. Price tag volatility drastically increases as a consequence of constant trading. This provides the trade possibility to take pleasure in the cost volatility thus starting to be a lot more profitable.

3. Improved execution

The trader Positive aspects from productive execution of trades orders when using an ECN account. It is because this technique isn't going to call for the consumer to trade with broker but relatively use his network to place orders. Consequently the ECN broker would not be responsible for executing your trades but only matching them with other industry members. That is accomplished without delay permitting each trader to relished Increased trade execution.

Demerits of employing ECN account

one. High service fees

The higher levels of charges and commissions rates are the greatest drawback of making use of ECN account. The look of ECN community should be to cost Fee on each individual trade. When these commissions are amassed it will become as well expensive as more trades are executed each day. The large commissions billed lowers profitability Therefore scaring traders from making use of this type of accounts.

youtube

two. Dishonesty

The marketplace makers can from time to time turn out to be dishonest. The look of this account permits Absolutely everyone being his individual industry maker. This encourages the apply of dishonesty to crop available in the market. There are bigger chances of dishonest people start off introducing substantial quantity trades to be able to impact the marketplace. Other individuals that are not ECN brokers would deceive other that they're.

Conclusion

ECN account has started to become among the list of really recommended platforms during the Forex market for all traders as a consequence of its interactive and good connectivity characteristics. Even when you are new out there, you may have far better opportunity to be really profitable when employing such a account. This is why it truly is very popular with inexperienced traders and starters out there. This can be regarded as the top variety of account to hold if you want to achieve success and enjoy investing Forex. In combination with these Rewards, using ECN account also enable you enjoy investing attributes made available from the brokers.

Scalp trading is an extremely quick approach to investing by which traders obtain and provide a stock inside of a frame of your time from seconds to minutes executing lots of transactions throughout the day. While you will be trying to find earnings of only 1 or 2 cents for each transaction/trade, when you choose into account the amount of trades you may be flipping, the earnings can incorporate up nicely. Furthermore, you could however create a revenue even Once your trade breaks even. how occur Because when you add liquidity to the marketplace, the ECN will rebate back to you personally a percentage of the trade. Incorporating this a single system can manufacture a very good revenue. To become particular, scalp traders trade in between the bid-question distribute. They purchase a inventory over the bid then ideal way unload in the question. Because this technique of rapid investing does best with lower priced shares which have been sluggish shifting, scalp traders make profits by transacting substantial volume. Scalp buying and selling has no large just one time profits, but concurrently you'll find less odds of dropping and so It's really a safer method of buying and selling the stock sector. But wait, not merely any individual can scalp trade. You'll find applications that happen to be required therefore you should have discounted commission rates. It requires exceptionally discounted scalp buying and selling costs and privelaged use of the NYSE ground. Equally of which you might have a hard time getting at your on the web discount broker. So How could you do this? You'll find proprietary buying and selling companies that acquire you on as a qualified Expert trader. And when You aren't, you must look for a proprietary buying and selling organization which will university you.

Finding a very good prop business means finding a company that gives the power for you to trade their cash and possess deeply discounted commissions. Many proprietary buying and selling corporations enables you sign up for their agency with only five or 10 thousand dollars. With that,For that, they are going to let you trade with $a hundred,000 or more based on your practical experience. It isn't unheard of for the proprietary trading agency to accept hazard deposits of $ten,000 and supply you with the chance to trade with $three hundred,000 but you must are aware that they are going to desire a proportion of your income. The revenue sharing scale can range between you finding fifty to ninety five% but that could count on your profitability. The higher your reputation, the considerably less they can ask for.

The most important final decision when seeking a proprietary investing firm in your scalp investing fashion is going to be commissions and floor routes available. Inquire concerning what ground routes they have got and if they will supply you with your own personal private ground broker. Several proprietary buying and selling companies will do this In case you are an active ample. Future, discover what their trade expenses are. You'll want to discover a organization that may cost .0005 to .0007 per share. On the three,000 share trade, that will be one.fifty to two.ten dollars for every roundtrip trade; an improvement about the $8.ninety five per trade charge at an everyday online broker. Also make sure that they go the rebates back again to you due to the fact as you'll master, the rebate is just as important to your scalp trading.

There are numerous classes offered that train the art of scalp trading. Come to be educated so you're able to improve your prospects for achievement. Moreover, if you desire to a location to trade, the proprietary buying and selling agency beneath provides the above prices, direct use of the ground and substantial trader education and learning. Fantastic investing.

#broker #forex #broker ecn

0 notes

mildredjizquierdo · 4 years

Text

Five pandemic predictions five months later. Was I right?

Looking back

In April, with the pandemic raging, lockdowns underway in the Northeast and West, and widespread panic about what the immediate future would bring, I tried to look over the horizon to see where we were heading. My 4 predictions for the next phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and Prediction 5: The end of immigration, distilled what I was seeing in Boston plus what I was hearing from healthcare and life sciences clients and physician and scientist friends in US hotspots and around the world. I didn’t put a timeframe on when this “next phase” would be, but with the summer behind us and a new school year getting going, now seems like a good time to take stock.

Judge for yourself, but overall I think I did well. Let’s review:

#1: Treatment, not testing will be key to reopening the economy Grade: B

I was right that testing wouldn’t be our savior, but also overestimated how quickly treatment would improve.

In April, everyone was talking about the need for millions of rapid turnaround tests to get things moving again. Other countries, like Germany and Singapore had deployed testing on a massive scale. But when I looked at what was going on in the US I was unimpressed. There were lots of announcements about capacity but little follow through.

Sadly, we’re still doing poorly. Recent estimates suggest the need for 193 million tests per day; we’re only doing 21 million. In Massachusetts (one of the leaders in testing) it’s still hard to get a test if you’re not symptomatic. Test results elsewhere can take a week or even longer, if you can get tested at all. Bill Gates recently criticized the current state of US testing: too few, too slow to return results, wrong swabs.

The absence of rapid turnaround testing at scale and weak contact tracking has hampered the ability of scientists to inform policy makers and the public about what works and what doesn’t. This failure contributed to the rapid spread of disease in early hot spots. It also fed public confusion and undermined support for guidelines, which seemed vague, random and contradictory.

Remdesivir was already showing promise in April, and non-drug adjustments such as optimization of mechanical ventilation and turning patients on their sides were being tried. Intriguing stories of cardiovascular impacts and cytokine storms were emerging. I expected we’d have a bunch of drugs and other innovations that would make COVID-19 a manageable disease by now. The death rate is down, but treatment improvements have been incremental and some early hopes fizzled. Dexamethasone, an old steroid is the only drug beyond remdesivir with widespread evidence of effectiveness.

There are new possibilities ahead. Olumiant (baricitinib) appears to help patients on remdesivir recover faster and may gain emergency approval by the time you read this. And researchers are looking at new mechanisms, such as bradykinin storms to understand how COVID-19 does its damage and how to stop it. There are several other treatments under evaluation, too.

Bottom line: fatigue, denial and surrender were bigger factors in reopening decisions than I expected. The economy still isn’t fully reopened and we may need to wait for a vaccine to move back toward normalcy.

#2: Hybridization (virtual/in-person mix) will be the new reality Grade: A+

I’m proud of this prediction. At the time I made it, the consensus was that everyone would return to the office by summer and get back to school in September. That hasn’t happened. Instead, as spaces reopen, hybrid models are emerging everywhere to reduce density and decrease risk. You see it with schools, businesses, physician offices and clinical trials. Remote work and school are still happening, but work from home is no panacea.

I expect hybridization to outlive the pandemic as individuals and organizations learn that a mix of in-person and remote is best for most activities. But patients may have to assert themselves to receive the full benefits of hybrid care, because healthcare organizations have a tendency to revert to what works for them rather than what’s most convenient and affordable for patients. Telehealth was used for almost 70 percent of total visits in April before dropping to around 20 percent in the summer. Some patient-centric leaders, such as Boston Children’s Hospital have maintained rates at close to 50 percent.

#3: Public health post-COVID-19 will be like security post-9/11 Grade: B

When I started traveling again soon after 9/11, the sudden jump in security at airports, office buildings and public spaces was staggering. In the following months and years, security became a huge industry and an obsession.

In April, I wrote:

“Now that COVID-19 has struck, we can expect public health to be similarly elevated. It will become a pervasive part of our economy and society. Expect temperature –and maybe face mask and hand washing– checks at the office, school, and any public venue. Contact tracers may call or visit our homes or scrutinize our cellphone records. Event managers and employers will need to hire a health team and devise a health/safety plan to prevent outbreaks and provide confidence.”

I’ve certainly seen this in the private sector. For example, many private schools require daily health attestations, temperature checks, masks, outdoor eating, etc. Stores announce, “no mask, no service” policies in their windows. Some states and counties have good contact tracing programs, but unlike 9/11 there is no nationwide approach, and no Homeland Security equivalent.

As more venues reopen I expect that this trend will continue. What’s not yet clear is whether public health will receive additional funding and just how central it will be to our future. Much depends on how quickly and completely the current pandemic is brought under control, whether new health threats emerge soon, and who occupies the White House in 2021.

#4: Federal government will grow even more powerful relative to everything else Grade: A-

This prediction was paradoxical. Those I reviewed it with at the time found it novel and counter-intuitive. After all, the feds failed to prepare for the pandemic and threw everything onto the states. The CDC embarrassed itself with its testing approach and then was sidelined.

But the federal government has essentially unlimited spending power, which it used to prop up the economy with the $2+ Trillion CARES Act, and the stock market (via the Federal Reserve). Meanwhile, states had to come begging –quite literally—to the president for help, and our world-leading universities and colleges found themselves in desperate straits and unable to reopen.

In short, the federal government’s failures have weakened the rest of US society much more than the federal government itself has been weakened.

The reason I give myself an A- instead of an A is that I didn’t address what would happen relative to the rest of the world. The US federal government has lost international standing during the pandemic with its poor response. The country was rated as the most prepared for a pandemic –but botched things anyway. The withdrawal from the WHO weakened our hand, and our slow economic recovery means we’re losing ground on China and others.

#5: The end of immigration Grade: A

Crises present major opportunities for governments to enact policies they wouldn’t be able to get away with in normal times. The current Administration has made no secret of its disdain for immigration. It had taken some dramatic steps before the pandemic, such as curtailing the H1-B program for highly skilled workers and attempting to build a wall along the Mexican border.

In April, the president tweeted his intention to suspend all immigration. That’s about as dramatic as it gets and would have drawn much more fire even a month or two earlier. But with lockdowns and travel bans throughout the world, and a virus floating in the air, it was harder to argue against. Consider some of the additional actions taken against immigration during the pandemic, including bans on asylum seekers and refugee resettlement, a ban on international students coming to the US if their classes were not in person (rescinded after pushback), and more restrictions on H-1B lottery winners.

The pandemic has also made the US a less attractive destination for would-be immigrants, even without all of the explicit actions. That won’t be reversed quickly.

What’s next?

There are big questions for the next few months and years, including:

When will vaccination make a decisive difference? This includes when vaccines are approved, how quickly and rationally they are distributed, how well they work and for how long, and what the uptake is.

What will the economy of the early 2020s look like? Will travel and leisure return? Education at all levels? Office work? What new industries will emerge?

What will be the US’s role in the world? Much of this hinges on the results of the 2020 election and its aftermath.

I’ll offer my commentary on these topics as the situation continues to unfold. Check the Health Business Blog and HealthBiz podcast for updates.

In recent months, my strategy consulting firm, Health Business Group has helped our healthcare and life sciences clients factor the implications of the pandemic into their growth and M&A strategies. Would you like to discuss your own organization’s plans and how Health Business Group can help? If so, please email me: [email protected].

The post Five pandemic predictions five months later. Was I right? appeared first on Health Business Group.

0 notes

shirlleycoyle · 5 years

Text

WeWork’s Implosion Shows How SoftBank Is Breaking the World

Why should we believe any of the people responsible for the ongoing tech bubble when they claim what they’re doing has great benefit for humanity? Listening to them, you might think that rising inequality, rampant tax evasion, and ecological devastation are simply capitalism run amok. This assertion, however, obscures what the bubble has done to “disrupt” our society at an individual, collective, and institutional level.

There is perhaps no better example of how wildly out-of-control venture capital and Silicon Valley have gotten than the slow-moving disaster that is WeWork and the attempt by SoftBank, its largest investor, to save it by burning through an ungodly sum of its near-unlimited money.

Despite its spectacular implosion, WeWork refuses to die. Tuesday, SoftBank closed on a deal that will see it put an additional $10 billion into the company, which is now valued at $8 billion—a far cry from its $47 billion valuation earlier this year. SoftBank's newest deal includes a $5 billion loan, the acceleration of a $1.5 billion investment originally scheduled for next year, and the buyback of up to $3 billion in SoftBank stock from employees and investors. This brings SoftBank’s total investment to over $19 billion.

WeWork has delayed thousands of its scheduled layoffs because it does not have enough cash for the severance costs. Co-founder and former CEO Adam Neumann, however, is receiving a $1.7 billion golden parachute. This does not include the $700 million he already made when he sold stock ahead of the planned IPO. This does include, however, his sale of $970 million of his stock to SoftBank, a credit to repay a $500 million loan from JPMorgan, and $185 million in consulting fees.

WeWork's co-founder and former CEO Adam Neumann. (Michael Kovac / Contributor)

What Silicon Valley truly is, once we move past the sales pitch, is not pleasant. We have a closely-knit network of venture capitalists who rarely have to suffer the consequences of their profit-seeking behavior. Their efforts have real-world consequences that have allowed companies like Uber to ignore regulations and create a new underclass of gig workers, WeWork to light money on fire, Airbnb to inflate residential rents, and a host of other corporations to increasingly privatize more and more of our lives.

Behind these firms is a house of cards of funding—angel investors and venture capitalists and firms like SoftBank who use their money to artificially drive the values of companies to absurd levels, with the goal of cashing out before that house of cards crumbles.

With WeWork, SoftBank almost pulled it off, until would-be investors in the company’s IPO realized it wasn’t worth anywhere near SoftBank’s pumped-up valuation.

SoftBank itself is heavily reliant on debt. It is obsessed with debt financing, which means that, in order to make investments, it will take out loans against the equity it has on another company. SoftBank has taken unprofitable companies, pumped them full of borrowed money to turn them into larger, still unprofitable companies, and hoped that with SoftBank’s influx of cash, they can undercut market rates, monopolize an industry, jack the prices back up, and make off like bandits. We’ve seen this strategy with Uber, where SoftBank is the largest investor. And now we’re seeing it with WeWork. Failing monopolization, or basic business stuff like “making money,” SoftBank can at least keep up the smoke-and-mirrors long enough to do an IPO so it, a startup’s founders, and other early investors make a lot of money; later investors, employees, customers, and the public at large get screwed.

But not every industry can be monopolized (or at least, they can’t be monopolized fast enough; even SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son admitted recently that he is getting tired of losing money). A series of unprofitable startups have been launched in markets that, thus far, haven’t shown that they can be monopolized profitably. These companies, in “disrupting” existing businesses by undercutting them with artificially low prices subsidized by VC cash, destroy the pre-existing firms and devastate the communities that rely on them. With WeWork and perhaps Uber, there’s evidence that this strategy can’t last forever. When these firms inevitably falter or crash or retreat, the cleared ground is just that—cleared ground, littered with corpses of the local businesses and communities and individuals harvested for profits.

Venture Capital Is an Illusion

The idea behind venture capital is simple: raise capital from institutional investors (pensions, endowments, etc.), buy equity stakes in a multitude of start-ups, then oversee operations until the start-ups go public or are sold to a bigger company and investors can cash out. Venture capitalists work under the assumption that most investments will fail and some will show unremarkable returns, but at least one might be the next Facebook or Google and will offset all other losses.

From the dot-com crash of 2000 to 2018, VC has exploded from $100 million annually to $131 billion annually. 80 percent of that spending is concentrated in just four metro areas (the Bay Area, New York, Boston, and LA).

A 2018 study by University of California researchers Martin Kenny and John Zysman maps out the same period and explains that the explosion of the number of start-ups, the proliferation of unicorns (start-ups valued at $1 billion or higher), and the unprofitability of a majority of unicorns when hitting the public market are a consequence of them "each trying to ignite the winner-take-all dynamics through rapid expansion characterized by breakneck and almost invariably money-losing growth, often with no discernible path to profitability."

Much of the returns on VC investments are being grabbed by a close-knit group of investors who get in early, often at the expense of the public. In 1998 a Fortune article noted, “the dirty little secret of the venture business is that VCs can be enormously successful even though most of their portfolio companies may tank in the public markets.” In the dot-com bubble, IPOs enriched venture capitalists and other early investors who cashed out—investors connected enough to get in early, and wealthy enough to be insulated from whatever risks the public would be exposed to as investors or consumers. In today’s bubble, VCs are facing mounting skepticism about these unprofitable enterprises and doubling down to protect their investments.

In the last bubble, companies stayed private for an average of four years; today it is more than 11 years. That longer lead time can inflate valuations as companies draw more funding rounds, each of which necessitates that the company’s value goes up. It also gives these companies more time to construct a narrative about their path to profitability.

But in recent years, the more money that SoftBank has pumped into a company, the worse their returns have been. WeWork is currently losing $5,197 per customer per year, and in many big funding rounds, SoftBank has been its major (and sometimes only) investor. Uber takes a loss on every ride it gives; we are killing Uber simply by using it, with each ride’s true cost subsidized thanks to billions from VCs like SoftBank. SoftBank throws billions at these companies despite no evidence they will ever be profitable. Why?

Deep-pocketed VCs understand that while continually pumping money into a company can prop up valuations, it’s not enough. You also have to pretend business is something that it’s not. Vision Fund investments need a vision, after all. It doesn’t matter whether Uber or WeWork actually work—or what happens when they fail—but that they have a vision that sounds profitable.

One of Uber’s more ingenious moves to preserve its valuation: autonomous vehicles. The only justification for its ludicrous valuation was the dream of a future global monopoly (and subsequent profitability) ushered in by getting rid of Uber’s most expensive cost: its underpaid drivers.

It’s not clear if self-driving cars will ever be possible, but even if they did happen, Uber would on some level just be exchanging the labor costs of human drivers with the capital costs of owning autonomous vehicles and training their software. But the possibility that Uber—a company that, it's all too happy to remind everyone, simply makes a smartphone app—could invent and bring to market a technology that can completely replace human drivers led to ever-increasing valuations. As of August, Uber still had yet to ever turn a profit. When Uber held its IPO, many of its earliest investors made fortunes: co-founders Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp became multi-billionaires, SoftBank made over $9 billion, Benchmark Capital made over $6 billion, and the Public Investment Fund about $3 billion. Its stock price has since plummeted 30 percent.

Likewise, while WeWork was burning SoftBank’s cash on its core business, it branched out to burn more money on side projects. WeWork bought 20 other companies in the leadup to its IPO, including Meetup, the office cleaning and management company Managed By Q, and a marketing firm called Prolific Interactive. All the while, WeWork was actually just a real estate company that pitched itself as a tech company; it’s still unclear whether WeWork is anything more than an ineffective, deeply indebted landlord.

“At what point does malfeasance become fraud?” asked Scott Galloway, a New York University Business School professor who dubbed the company WeWTF after reading through its financials in the company’s IPO filing. It’s not clear what happens to commercial property since WeWork was the largest tenant in downtown Chicago, New York City, and London. It has stopped signing new leases, and, unless it magically starts making money, it may at some point have to close the majority of its 500+ offices in 100+ cities.

So how did WeWork go from a valuation of $47 billion to an investor coup in just 30 days? People started to realize that WeWork was only “worth” $47 billion because SoftBank said it was.

Matthew Stoller elaborates on this in a fantastic dissection of WeWork and, well, the economy at large:

“There were several 'rounds' of WeWork investment where Softbank was buying more shares at higher valuations,” Stoller points out. “WeWork ostensibly became more valuable because Son said it was more valuable, and bought shares for higher prices. And since there was no public market for these shares, the pricing of the shares was totally arbitrary. WeWork then used this cash to underprice competitors in the co-working space market, hoping to be able to profit later once it had a strong market position in real estate subletting or ancillary businesses."

"The goal of Son, and increasingly most large financiers in private equity and venture capital, is to find big markets and then dump capital into one player in such a market who can underprice until he becomes the dominant remaining actor. In this manner, financiers can help kill all competition, with the idea of profiting later on via the surviving monopoly."

We do not have companies like Uber and WeWork because they’re efficient or innovative or even because we want to, we have them because they are being subsidized by venture capital. And here’s what we have to show for it: an underclass of gig workers, increased traffic congestion and urban pollution, the global suppression of labor standards, hollowed-out public transportation and taxi businesses across the world, and the instability that will come when Uber and WeWork collapse as SoftBank and other investors get tired of losing money from these creatively unprofitable businesses.

So What?

It’s easy to take a look at these numbers, and what is happening, broadly speaking, and allow your eyes to glaze over. Some dude who walks barefoot down the streets of New York City becomes a billionaire; some of his investors make a lot of money, some other billionaires lose a few billion. We laugh or decide not to pay attention. The billionaires keep doing what they want and keep finding other companies to pump up.

But the side effects of venture capital’s quest for not just big companies but the biggest companies may haunt us even on the off chance that regulators and politicians decide to try to reign them in. It has created, for example, a world where our individually and socially created data is owned by large corporations like Google or Facebook; perhaps if you’re lucky you’ll be compensated for with a paltry dividend paid out to you. It has created a world where we are inundated with goods and services that are free or subsidized in the short-term (i.e. search, social networks, meal plan boxes, delivery services, video streaming, ride-hailing, etc.) but that we are at some point going to pay for with our data or our jobs or our autonomy or our attention or, eventually, with our money because, once a monopoly is achieved, the price can be increased.

The tech bubble is not simply a market problem. We have allowed venture capital to concentrate power in ways that dictate how our cities work, how our technology is developed, how labor operates, and how we relate to each other. A digital economy where large technology platforms and start-ups turn our public sphere into a series of fiefs rationing out goods and services is not a natural development—it’s not even a progressive one.

If there is a takeaway, it is that this tech bubble is worse than the last precisely because it has incubated for so long. It has naturalized the privatization of our lives as technology’s teleology when really that is a political project being advanced for the benefit and profit of a narrow group of elites at the expense of the public. Getting out of the bubble requires us asking some basic questions that sound revolutionary only because of how much bullshit we’ve absorbed. Do we actually need computers and sensors embedded in every surface? Are there social and political problems that simply cannot or should not be solved within the market? And how are we going to go about rebuilding society if our answers lead us in that direction?

WeWork’s Implosion Shows How SoftBank Is Breaking the World syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

0 notes

abujaihs-blog · 5 years

Text

Lifting 100m Nigerians out of poverty:Lessons from Brazil, India, China, Indonesia

However, the gains achieved by some countries with similar demographic and developmental levels (as at the 1980s) point to how Africa’s largest economy could lift almost 100 million inhabitants out of poverty. Concerns on poverty levels heightened in Nigeria in May 2018 after a report by the Brookings Institution revealed that the country took the baton from India to become home to the highest number of people living in extreme poverty in the world. At that time, Nigeria had 87 million people living in extreme poverty compared to 73 million in India. The figures worsened to over 93 million in June 2019 in Nigeria, thereby accounting for 47.7 percent of the country’s population. President Muhammadu Buhari, while addressing Nigerians at the maiden June 12 Democracy Day celebration this year, expressed optimism that the country has the potential to lift a large number of people out of extreme poverty.

“With leadership and sense of purpose, we can lift 100 million Nigerians out of poverty in 10 years,” Buhari said. Plans by the Federal Government to disburse N5,000 to the poor through the social intervention programme (SIP) would translate to N465 billion for each month. This means the government would spend N5.58 trillion to cater for the poor in a year. For a country challenged with revenue inflows as its major source of income has come under pressure owing to developments in the international market, the move could further worsen the nation’s current debt stock and make its plan to reduce poverty counter-productive. To ascertain the feasibility of the government’s goal to lift 100 million out of extreme poverty in the next 10 years, an international comparison of countries like Brazil, India, China, and Indonesia with remarkable wins against extreme poverty in the last few decades would help. Brazil is an upper middle-income country, and just like Nigeria, is the largest country in South America, with an estimated population of over 200 million people. The country has achieved some successes in complementing market-oriented reforms with progressive social policies which have helped it achieve a significant growth rate, bring more people into the economy, and create jobs to meet the growing demand and expectations of an expanding labour force. The new policy by the Brazilian government from the 1990s similar to the “Washington Consensus” include far-reaching reforms on macroeconomic stability, and privatisation of some state-owned enterprises thereby opening the country up for capital inflows to revive moribund state’s assets. Also implemented were fiscally prudent policies through a low government borrowing strategy. The idea was to discourage it from having high fiscal deficits relative to GDP, diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure, implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates. Part of the trade reforms adopted include selecting interest rates that are determined by the market, encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange, adoption of free trade policies. Currently, lawmakers in Brazil are debating the government’s pension reform bill, which aims to generate savings of around 1 trillion reais ($262 billion) over the next decade, shore up the public finances and stimulate investment and economic growth in the country. Also, India, the world’s second-most populous country, with the majority of poor people living in villages and rural communities, has halved its poverty rate in 10 years from 55 percent in 2005/06 to 28 percent in 2015/16. As of June 2019, less than 3 percent of Indians are below the poverty line, according to the World Poverty Clock. Until the first quarter of 2019 when the country recorded a sluggish growth rate of 5.8 percent, the Indian economy was the fastest growing major economy in the world ahead of China. This made the nation achieve a significant reduction in its poverty rate. The achievement came on the back of improved living standards through investments in human capital, better sanitation, and increased household assets propping up the country’s per capita GDP, a measure of a country’s wealth relative to each individual, from less than $400 in 1990 to $2,036 in 2018, according to the International Monetary Fund. Although there had been some efforts by India in the 1980s to create jobs and shore up its economy, the major factors that trigger poverty reduction in any economy, India’s reforms and policies for an inclusive economic growth started in early 1991. In 1991, India had an economic crisis owing to its external debt, rendering its government incapacitated to make the payments for the borrowings it had made from the foreign countries. This led the government to adopt new policy reforms to reposition the economy. The reforms were geared towards supporting the private sector players which eventually opened up the Indian economy to foreign investment, even as some other reforms focussed on restructuring the public sector. Major steps were taken in trade and industrial policy. These include a reduction in import tariffs, deregulation of markets, and reduction of taxes, making the country record increased foreign investment. As a result, foreign direct investment into the country began to increase, rising from less than $10 billion in 2005-06 to $42 billion in 2018 on the back of robust inflows into manufacturing, communication, financial services and cross-border merger and acquisition activities, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report 2019. This placed the country as the 10th highest recipient of FDI inflows in the world. Growth in cross-border merger and acquisitions in India grew to $33 billion in 2018 compared with $23 billion recorded a year earlier, this was driven by $16 billion worth of transactions in retail trade which includes e-commerce and telecommunication ($13 billion). Consequently, the size of the nation’s economy spiked from $1.3 trillion in 2009 to $2.6 trillion in 2017. China’s rise from a poor developing country to a major economic powerhouse has been spectacular. Since opening up its economy to foreign trade and investment and implementing free-market reforms, the Asian giant has been among the world’s fastest growing economies, with an average annual growth of 8 percent in the decade between 2001 and 2010.

China’s growth miracle is buoyed by open-door economic policy and market-oriented reforms implemented. The Chinese government established several zones for foreign investment, including special economic zones, open coastal cities, the economic and technology development zones and high-tech development zones among others. The creation of these zones provided the trigger for massive inflows of foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly from companies in Taiwan and Hong-Kong. Additional reforms, which followed in stages, sought to decentralize economic policymaking in several sectors, especially trade. Economic control of various enterprises were given to provincial and local governments, which were allowed to operate and compete on free market principles, rather than state planning control. China’s trade and investment reforms led to a surge in FDI. Such flows have been a major source of China’s productivity gains and rapid economic and trade growth, with inflows rising from $3.5 billion in 1990 to $136.2 billion in 2017, making the Asian nation the third-largest recipient of FDI worldwide. There has been a consensus that productivity gains (increased efficiency) have been another major factor in China’s rapid economic growth. The improvements to productivity were caused largely by a reallocation of resources to more productive uses, especially in sectors that were formerly heavily controlled by the central government, such as agriculture, trade, and services. Agricultural reforms boosted production, freeing workers to pursue employment in the more productive manufacturing sector. China’s decentralization of the economy led to the rise of non-state enterprises (such as private firms), which tended to pursue more productive activities than the centrally controlled enterprises and were more market-oriented and more efficient. Additionally, a greater share of the economy (mainly the export sector) was exposed to competitive forces. Local and provincial governments were allowed to establish and operate various enterprises without interference from the government. In addition, FDI in China brought with it new technology and processes that boosted efficiency. The Indonesian economy is the largest in South East Asia and simultaneously the 16th biggest global economy by nominal Gross Domestic Product. Its economy expanded some 5.2 percent in 2018. Indonesia’s poverty elimination success has seen the percentage of the country’s population living below $1.9 per day plunge between 1999 and 2017, falling from 41.7 percent to 5.7 percent according to World Bank figures. According to the world poverty clock, 5.6 Indonesians escape poverty every minute. This is above the target escape rate of 1.9 people per minute. Whereas Nigeria has 4.5 people fall into absolute poverty every minute, completely missing its target of lifting 15.5 people out of the poverty trap every minute. Indonesia’s economic reform started when it began liberalizing its economy and shifted its economy to a non-oil export oriented one with an increased focus on a broad-based economic growth that had at its center, rural development. The government focused its attention on raising productivity (of rural areas especially) by focusing on agriculture, education and transport infrastructure with little emphasis on direct transfer programs, consumer subsidies, and public employment. The government spent about a third of its development budget on improving agriculture especially rice farming in the period. The government also committed 49 percent of its oil windfall to creating social and physical infrastructure and a result, Indonesia was able to cut down the number of people in absolute poverty to 40 percent by 1976. Indonesia also embarked on a currency devaluation by the late 1970s which resulted in increased competitiveness and improved exports of non-oil commodities. The rupiah was allowed to float from late 1966 to the end of 1968, during which time it depreciated from Rp 85 per U.S. dollar to Rp 326. The move reduced the incidence of export smuggling and increased its export receipts as well as boosting the confidence of potential aid donors and of foreign investors and residents, who repatriated capital that had previously been in flight. As a result by the late 1980s, Indonesia was able to stand on equal footing with Nigeria given its export-oriented and labor-intensive growth that increased employment and private investment.

Indonesia also passed into law two policies to encourage foreign investment. In addition, rural development strategy of improved spending on education, health and water hygiene proved to be a success as rural areas where most of the poor lived, grew at a faster rate than in urban centers. The current national framework for poverty reduction Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional (RPJMN) which started in 2015 and is expected to end in 2019 focuses on reducing poverty by making economic growth more inclusive. The plan anchors on job creation and improving the business environment to increase investment in labor-intensive industries and small enterprise. The government also outlined plans to develop basic infrastructure which would support economic activities as well as aid rural settlements and hinterlands. In addition, the government noted it would improve on the delivery of basic social services including education and health to the poor as well as roll out more comprehensive and better targeted social protection programs. The plan outlines an ambition to reduce income disparity between income group. Source: businessdayng Read the full article

0 notes