Saturday, January 24, 2015

2015 has been named the International Year of Light (and light-based technologies) by the United Nations

NASA releases breathtaking new space images in honor of the International Year of Light

 January 22  
2015 has been named the International Year of Light (and light-based technologies) by the United Nations, and NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has some special treats to help kick it off.
As you can probably guess based on its name, the Chandra X-ray observatory (launched in 1999) captures the X-rays emitted by celestial objects. But X-rays are just one piece of the full spectrum of light.
These images all combine data from multiple telescopes -- ones that are tuned to capture different wavelengths of light -- to create one stunning picture. You can see the individual shots that made up the composite images at the Chandra Web site.
The observatory is also running a project called "Light: Beyond the Bulb" where scientists and artists can submit their own examples of the power of light. From bio-luminescent lakes to psychedelic shots of light-bulbs under X-rays, the collection will give you a new appreciation of just how beautiful -- and varied -- light is in our universe.
Read More: 

Friday, January 23, 2015

How Technology Is Making All of Us Less Trusting - Reuter

Denis Balibouse / Reuters

The world's major tech companies better pay attention to the growing backlash—before it's too late


That’s the takeaway from the 2015 Trust Barometer survey, released by public relations firm Edelman every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This year’s survey, which came out Wednesday, looks at thousands of consumers in 27 countries to get a sense of public trust in business, government, NGOs, and media. This year, it’s falling across the board, with two thirds of nations’ citizens being more distrustful than ever of all institutions, perhaps no surprise given that neither the private nor the public sector seems to have answers to the big questions of the day—geopolitical conflict, rising inequality, flat wages, market volatility, etc.
What’s interesting is how much people blame technology and the speed of technological change for the feeling of unease in the world today. Two to one, consumers in all of the countries surveyed felt that technology was moving too quickly for them to cope with, and that governments and business weren’t doing enough to assess the long term impact of shifts like GMO foods, fracking, disruptors like Uber or Apple Pay, or any of the the myriad other digital services that effect privacy and security of people and companies. 
That belies the conventional wisdom amongst tech gurus like, say, Jeff Bezos, who once said that, “New inventions and things that customers like are usually good for society.” Maybe, but increasingly people aren’t feeling that way. And it could have an impact on the regulatory environment facing tech companies. Expect more push back on sharing economy companies that skirt local regulation, a greater focus on the monopoly power of mammoth tech companies, and closer scrutiny of the personal wealth of tech titans themselves.
Two of the most interesting pieces of journalism I have read in recent years look at how the speed of digital change is effecting culture and public sentiment. Kurt Andersen’s wonderful Vanity Fair story from January 2012, posited the idea that culture is stuck in retro mode—think fashion’s obsession with past decades, and the nostalgia that’s rife in TV and film—because technology and globalization are moving so fast that people simply can’t take any more change, cognitively at least. Likewise, Leon Wieseltier’s sharp essay on the cover of the New York Times book review this past Sunday lamented how the fetishization of all things Big Tech has led us to focus on the speed, brevity and monetization of everything, to the detriment of “deep thought” and a broader understanding of the human experience. 
I agree on both counts. And I hope that some of the tech luminaries here at Davos, like Marissa Mayer, Eric Schmidt, and Sheryl Sandberg, are paying attention to this potential growing backlash, which I expect will heat up in the coming year.
    

Thursday, January 22, 2015

ECB unveils massive QE boost for eurozone - BBC MEWS


The European Central Bank (ECB) will inject at least €1.1 trillion (£834bn) into the ailing eurozone economy.
The ECB will buy €60bn bonds each month from banks until the end of September 2016, or even longer, in what is called quantitative easing (QE).
QE in theory increases the supply of money, something that keeps interest rates low and encourages borrowing and therefore spending.
The news sent the euro to an 11-year low against the against the US dollar.
In late afternoon US trading the euro was down 2% at $1.1367. It also fell 1.1% against the pound to be worth 75.82, or €1.3187. It has lost 6% of its value so far this year.
Stalling
Record low eurozone rates have failed to boost the 19-country euro area.
The ECB also said it would keep eurozone interest rates at 0.05%, a record low.
Rates have been at that level since September 2014. 
ECB president Mario Draghi said the programme would begin in March.
Earlier this month, figures showed the eurozone was suffering deflation, creating the danger that growth would stall as businesses and consumers shut their wallets, as they waited for prices to fall.
Mr Draghi said the programme would be conducted "until we see a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation", which the ECB has pledged to maintain at close to 2%.
Shares rose in response to the news and bond yields, which are linked to the amount governments pay to borrow, fell, particularly those of the weakest countries including Italy, Spain and Portugal.
QE graphic
Lowering the cost of borrowing should encourage banks to lend and eurozone businesses and consumers to spend more.
It is a strategy that appears to have worked in the US, which undertook a huge programme of QE between 2008 and 2014.
The UK and Japan have also had sizeable bond-buying programmes.
But some economists question what impact, longer term, this move can have. "Economically it is irrelevant but at least markets have had fun selling the euro and buying bank equities and peripheral bonds," said Alastair Winter, chief economist at Daniel Stewart.

Euro v US Dollar

LAST UPDATED AT 23 JAN 2015, 06:10*CHART SHOWS LOCAL TIMEEUR:USD intraday chart
€1 buyschange%
1.1320-
-0.00
-
-0.37
'Sizeable' slack
Mr Draghi said the ECB's own programme had been taken because it was necessary to "address heightened risks of too prolonged a period of low inflation".
Mr Draghi said there had been a "large majority" on the ECB's governing council in favour of triggering the bond-buying programme now - "so large that we did not need to take a vote".
Up until now, the ECB has resisted QE, although Mr Draghi reassured markets in July 2012 by saying he would be prepared to do whatever it took to maintain financial stability in the eurozone, nicknamed his "big bazooka" speech.
Since then, the case for quantitative easing has been growing. 
In advance of the ECB's announcement, there had been speculation that the central bank would not actually buy any bonds itself, but would invite the central banks of eurozone member governments to do so.
line
Analysis: Nigel Cassidy, Europe business correspondent, Brussels
Arriving somewhat breathless for his news conference, thanks to broken lifts, Mr Draghi finally produced a QE package for Europe that received an initial thumbs-up from the financial markets. In cash terms, it was just slightly more than some were expecting - but not that much more. 
On the question of sharing some of the risks of his bond-buying spree with the 19 national banks, Mr Draghi came out fighting, saying such arrangements were quite normal and starting to sound irritated when his questioners kept bringing it up. Yet for many, the eurozone is not a true monetary union if its liabilities are not shared equally. 
It all showed that Germany's deep reservations about the dangers of printing money could not be overcome in Frankfurt. Yet once again, a European institution has reach an 11th hour compromise which will be considered and dissected by the markets over the next few days. 
line
In the event, Mr Draghi said only 20% of the new asset purchases would require national central banks to shoulder risks outside their own borders.
But he added: "The modalities, the amounts, the rules, the limits that you just asked me about have been decided here in Frankfurt. So the governing council is the sole decision-maker and the decisions are meant to affect monetary and financial conditions across the whole euro area."
'Shock and awe'
The Italian Finance Minister, Pier Carlo Padoan, welcomed Mr Draghi's "ambitious strategy", which he said was "good for Europe".
Speaking in Davos to BBC economics editor Robert Peston, he said it would "push away any risk of deflation" and provide "an injection of confidence to markets".
But he added that it was "just one element" of efforts to restore the eurozone's economic fortunes. Structural reforms and further single market integration were also necessary, he said.
"Mario Draghi has been left with little choice than to begin a more robust than expected quantitative easing programme in a bid to awake the economies of the eurozone from their slumber," said Dennis de Jong, boss of trading site UFX.com.
"This play is seen by many as the last roll of the dice for the beleaguered euro. QE has had some success in the US and UK, but with such a patchwork of economies and banking systems in the eurozone, the jury is very much out."
Nancy Curtin, chief investment officer of Close Brothers Asset Management, said: "European QE is set to start with a bang rather than a whimper, a fact that will be well received by investors. 
"However, the eurozone is far from out of the woods. Structural economic issues remain, and all eyes now turn to the Greek election, with concerns that the result may eventually lead to a default and exit from the monetary union - a move which could send shockwaves through investors in the eurozone."

Monday, January 19, 2015

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR DEVELOPS AN IMAGE PROBLEM - ANZ Bank research


AUD DEVELOPS AN IMAGE PROBLEM
  • With the RBA ( Reserve Bank of Australia ) back in play, domestic factors will once again become a critical element in determining the direction of the AUD.
  • The impact of domestic factors on the AUD will be greater than the sum of their parts as Australia starts to suffer from an image problem.
  • We downgrade our AUD forecasts for the end of 2015 from USD0.82 to USD0.74, and for the end of 2016 from USD0.80 to USD0.72. We also reassess our view on AUD/NZD and expect it to remain range bound around these historic lows.
    Overall, relative to last year, we think that the nuance around currency valuation dynamics will change and the question that will need to be raised is whether this is the year that the AUD undershoots fair value, and provides a net boost to the economy.
    We also think that the domestic economy will become a more important swing factor in the level of the currency this year as the RBA comes back into play after more than 12 months on the sideline.
    SHORT-TERM DYNAMICS SUGGEST THAT THE AUD IS FAIR, BUT FUNDAMENTAL SHIFTS CANNOT BE IGNORED
    Over both very short and medium-term time frames the AUD looks like it is trading at a level that aligns with model estimates.
    A more medium-term, static behavioural model suggests that the AUD has now declined sufficiently for the valuation gap that we highlighted last year to be largely closed.

This is another indication that we are trading at more fair levels, ie for the AUD to decline more rapidly than fundamentals in 2014 (and bring about the needed reversion) it had to disconnect from them. However, as we have now ‘caught up’, the future direction of the AUD has become far more contingent on the evolution of fundamentals.
As such, the AUD’s sensitivity to fundamentals is currently heightened, and this is likely to remain the case for much of the year.
This means that further moves in the AUD cannot be driven by valuation concerns. It will need to be driven by either a shift in fundamentals or because a case can be mounted that the AUD should be trading at a discount to what the fair value is suggesting.
SO, WHAT IS GOING TO DRIVE THE AUD FROM HERE?
All of this is not to say that the AUD is anywhere close to providing a positive competitiveness shock, or that a bullish case for the AUD can be mounted.

In fact, competitiveness concerns are a key reason why we remain in an environment in which downside overshoots to behavioural models remains a distinct possibility.
To remain short the AUD in the current environment one needs to identify something more compelling than international competitiveness.
CHANGING RATE DYNAMICS WILL CHANGE PERCEPTIONS...
Our new economic forecasts highlight that we expect the RBA to act more dovishly than the market is pricing, ie to cut rates in both March and May 2015. Current pricing suggests that the RBA will begin its easing cycle in the middle of the year, and likely cut twice. As such, the ANZ view has not been fully discounted into the market.
Further, our rates strategists are now forecasting that the bond spreads between rates for Australia and the US will compress to zero by the middle of this year (Figure 4), and for a short period actually turn negative, and this is certainly not a part of current consensus expectations.

These two factors together should be sufficient to drive the AUD to fresh lows. And while in a modelling sense this will only shave a couple of cents from fair value, we believe that for the AUD, this time, the impact of the shift will be greater than the sum of its parts.
...AND THE AUD WILL BE LEFT WITH AN IMAGE PROBLEM
We believe that the decline in term rates in particular will create an environment in which we can get an overshoot in the AUD relative to fair value.
To say that differently, we think that the market will begin to demand a higher risk premium to remain a buyer of Australian assets.
Over the past four years the risk premium on AUD assets has remained small (ie AUD assets have been viewed as safer investments than they were in the past) and has inadequately reflected the fact that the risks inherent in holding these assets have been rising.
Given this, it is increasingly likely that within our forecasts horizon we see a more rapid pricing of this risk premium.
Looking back, there were two key factors that investors used to justify the contraction in the risk premium. First, the Australian economy was growing more strongly than that of the US, and that its growth trajectory was tied to China, the core engine of global growth. And second, that the level of public debt was low, and that the yield that was on offer relative to that of other AAA credits was very attractive.
There is some potential that this is set to change. The Australian economy is now clearly underperforming, while the Chinese economy remains in the midst of a large and challenging structural adjustment.

Further, it needs to remember that the past four years have been the exception, not the rule. Prior to the crisis in Europe, the relationship between a country’s public debt situation and the level of its currency was of no concern.
What mattered were the levels of aggregate (private + household) debt and the size of the external liability that the country held (ie how much of the financing of the liability was at risk). On both of these count Australia scores far less flatteringly than on a simple measure of government indebtedness.
If, as ANZ Research expects, these broader issues come into focus, while at the same time the spread available on Australian government bonds (relative to the US) falls to zero, then we expect that the risk premium will widen once again, and the AUD will overshoot fundamentals.
This sort of deterioration in perception has occurred before. Around the year 2000, global investors were also dismissive of Australia’s fundamentals.

With a mining-based economy in a new technology driven world, Australia was seen as uncompetitive and ill-equipped to compete in the modern global economy.
Through that time the AUD traded consistently cheaply relative to fundamentals, and we think the episode demonstrates the importance of perception, and provides a reasonable blueprint for 2015.
By the end of 2015 we expect that the AUD will be trading at USD 0.74, and that in 2016, the prospects for a rebound look equally unlikely.

CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR VIEW ON AUD/NZD
While we continue to think that the relative economic divergence between the Australian and New Zealand economies is very well priced with the cross at 1.04, an overshoot for Australia that is driven by an image problem and more intangible factors means that the fundamentals are likely to be overlooked. This should keep the AUD/NZD around current levels for the foreseeable future.
Daniel Been
Daniel.Been@anz.com 

Saturday, January 17, 2015

9 Ways Daily Mindfulness Will Help You Succeed - TIME

http://time.com/3670202/daily-mindfulness/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

    
Many of us are drawn to the peace and happiness promised by a life of mindfulness, but we often abandon it in our daily lives because practicing mindfulness can seem at odds with our desire to succeed.

But it doesn’t have to be.
Here are nine simple ways that incorporating mindfulness into your busy work life can actually help you succeed:

  1. Forgive and forget. Workplace politics are draining, and a waste of time. Don’t let yourself get sucked into drama. Save your mental energy for your own success by forgiving those who slight you, forgetting who said what about whom, and moving on to more important things.
  2. Breathe before you blast. Try not to shoot off emails when you’re angry. Take a deep breath first and reflect on what’s behind your anger. Anger-driven emails almost always do more harm than good, to sender and receiver alike.
  3. Stop being ‘judgy.’ Mistakes are an opportunity to learn, not an excuse to look at yourself or others with negativity. Assessing mistakes from a neutral perspective allows you and your team to grow from them. Harping on them only serves to bring you (and those around you) down.
  4. Do what you want. Mindfulness gurus often talk about the idea of “intention.” But what does intention really mean? It means to make sure you know why you’re doing what you’re doing. And to do what you want. If you feel like you are wasting time in your current occupation, stop doing it and start something new.
  5. Salute the sun. Starting your morning with a quiet mind will help you be more effective throughout the day. Carve out time in the mornings — before the day’s madness ensues — to do a few sun salutations, eat a leisurely breakfast, go for a jog or engage in whichever activity helps you to still your mind.
  6. Salute your enemies. The word “namaste” means “I bow to the divine in you.” Having respect for your enemies will help you learn from their strengths and be more objective about your own weaknesses. So salute your enemies. You may find yourself with fewer of them if you do.
  7. Take victory in stride. It’s important to celebrate milestones. But don’t get addicted to them. If you let yourself become too attached to your victories, you will be less able to cope with defeat. And the ability to persevere through failure is essential to success.
  8. Sleep more. According to the Dalai Lama, “Sleep is the best meditation.” Get more of it.
  9. Enjoy the journey. Life is short, and you will spend most of it working. Work can either be depressing, or it can be an incredible ride. It’s up to you. The more you enjoy what you do, the better you will be at it.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Xiaomi hits back at copycat allegations - CNBC

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102343384

Xiaomi hits back at copycat allegations

Hitting back at critics that labeled Xiaomi an "Apple copycat", vice president of international operations Hugo Barra said the company has "grown up", pointing to its latest smartphone – the Xiaomi Note – as proof. 
The rising smartphone star unveiled its new flagship phablet, the Xiaomi Note, at a launch event in Beijing on Thursday, taking direct aim at Apple and Samsung's large-screen offerings. 
"We have been working on the Xiaomi Note for 3 years – this is a product that was not designed in response to the iPhone 6 Plus or Galaxy Note 4 – it's been in the making for some time," Barra told CNBC on Friday. 
"We've been able to build an industrial design team and mechanical hardware engineering team that have had time to do a lot of independent thinking – and this is the first product [that is a result of that]," he said. 
Copycat?
Pulling a classic Apple move, the budget smartphone maker launched a cryptic ad campaign in the lead up to Thursday's launch, building suspense among its burgeoning fan base. 
During the launch, the company also drew direct comparisons between the specifications of its new phablet and the iPhone 6 Plus.
When asked why Xiaomi went so specifically after Apple's phone, Barra said: "All of our executives are engineers, and our audience is also engineers, geeks, people who really love specs. The reality is whatever product we announced, the one thing people would do is look across the entire ecosystem and compare, so we might as well do it ourselves." 
Copycat or not, Xiaomi was a disruptive force in the smartphone market in the past year, leapfrogging Lenovo and LG to become the world's third largest smartphone marker behind Samsung and Apple. 
Xiaomi held a 5.3 percent share of the global smartphone market in the third quarter of 2014, trailing Samsung and Apple, who have 23.8 percent and 12.0 percent shares, respectively, according to IDC. 
Growing Xiaomi's empire
While Xiaomi is working to increase its foothold in emerging markets, Barra says it has no plans to enter developed markets at the moment. 
Xiaomi forayed into Indonesia and India in 2014 and is looking at launching in Brazil, Mexico, Thailand and Vietnam next. 
"Those are markets where our strategy works very well: high specification products that can sell at very affordable prices," he said. 
"Entering markets like the U.S. and Europe require being really ready. These are incredibly competitive markets where you really have to have your marketing polished up. I think it will take us a couple of years."
Ansuya HarjaniWriter, CNBC Asia

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Back to the Future? Oil Replays 1980s Bust - Wall Street Journal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/back-to-the-future-oil-replays-1980s-bust-1421196361?mod=e2fb

Rise of Shale Extraction Speeds Output and Changes Equation for Producers


The discovery of oil from shale rocks means that U.S. output is faster paced. Drilling and hydraulically fracturing a well takes weeks, not years. 
By 
RUSSELL GOLD
Jan. 13, 2015 7:46 p.m. ET

A surge of oil from outside of the Middle East flooded global energy markets. The world-wide thirst for crude didn’t keep up. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries stood by and watched as oil prices fell and then fell more.
Welcome to the world of oil in 2015—a repeat in surprising ways of the story 30 years ago. Between November 1985 and March 1986, the price of crude plunged by 67%. Between June 2014 and today, crude prices have fallen by 57% and could well head lower. 
ENLARGE
After the mid-1980s bust, it took nearly two decades for oil prices to rebound to pre-bust levels and remain there. Energy executives are now haunted by the question: Will it take as long this time?
The answer may lie in one enormous difference between today and 30 years ago: the speed of shale.
Before U.S. energy companies figured out how to pull oil from shale formations, petroleum projects often took years to execute. Two decades passed between a fisherman spotting a colorful slick floating off the coast of Mexico and oil flowing from the giant Cantarell project off the Yucatan Peninsula. It took nine years and billions of dollars to get crude moving from the North Slope of Alaska to markets.
Today, the discovery and development of oil from shale rocks means that oil output is faster paced and near at hand—in Texas and North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, even Ohio. Drilling and hydraulically fracturing a well takes weeks, not years. An expensive well costs $10 million, compared with the billions needed to drill offshore wells and build associated infrastructure. Moreover, expenditure of both time and money are falling fast.
The oil field investment cycle has shortened. Wildcatters in Texas discovered the Eagle Ford Shale in 2008. Within five years, it was pumping a million barrels a day—thanks to an influx of capital that paid for drilling thousands of new wells. Each well roars into life and then drops off fast. Without constantly drilling new wells, these oil fields will peter out.

Faster-reacting shale production could help cut supply more quickly than in the past, restoring market balance without a decadeslong wait. The availability of so much new oil, housed in easy-to-tap shale formations, could also make price spikes less frequent.
But that doesn’t mean prices will rebound soon, or return to the triple-digit levels seen just months ago. Price pressure may need to remain on the U.S. oil industry and its lenders for months to rein in supply.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said Monday it saw a “U-shaped” recovery with depressed prices until the market rebalances and prices rise in 2016. The firm said it expected U.S. crude to average $47.15 a barrel this year, down from a previous prediction of $73.75.
A year of low prices beats a decade, as far as the energy industry is concerned. But it is unclear exactly what will happen: shale-oil output has boomed only in the past five years—and faces its first downturn.
“No one has so far experienced what the actual consequences of a ‘stress test’ on U.S. production could be,” says Leonardo Maugeri, a scholar at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former top executive with the Italian oil giant EniSpA.
Even veteran oil traders are uncertain. “Sustained low prices will ultimately bring the market into balance,” Andrew Hall, who runs a $3 billion energy derivatives hedge fund, Astenbeck Capital Management LLC, wrote in a private letter to investors earlier this month which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “But it is unclear how long that will take and what the new price equilibrium will be.”
Many economists and energy analysts believe that prices will probably rebound somewhat from current levels by the end of the year. The global benchmark for oil, currently $46.59, will “head back toward the $70 range and I suspect that will be sustainable for quite some time,” says Stephen P. A. Brown, an energy economist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and former economist with the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank.


The dollar increased in value in the early 1980s as the Federal Reserve wrung inflation out of the U.S. economy, but the Reagan Administration engineered a large devaluation in 1985 in agreement with other major economic powers. Between March 1985 and December 1987, the dollar lost 40% of its value against a basket of other major currencies. That stands in contrast to the current episode: The dollar rose more than 12% in 2014, compared with a basket of widely traded securities. 
During the last big supply-driven oil bust, demand had been muted for several years, in part because of conservation measures Americans embraced after the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. The country adopted energy-efficiency standards for cars, while using oil to generate electricity fell out of favor.
Meanwhile, oil output outside OPEC grew rapidly. Production in the North Sea surged, as did output from China and Oman. Mexico began shipping more than one million barrels a day in 1981 from its Cantarell complex. Even the American oil industry had started pumping more oil from its high-cost oil fields.

Changing prices at a gas station in Toronto in February 1986. Between November 1985 and March 1986, the price of crude plunged by 67%. 
And so a glut developed. At first, as oil prices began retreating, Saudi Arabia tried to bolster prices by cutting its production, which fell from 10 million barrels a day in the early years of the decade to 2.3 million in August 1985, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Late that year, tired of losing market share to rising oil exporters, the Saudis threw in the towel and began pumping again—and so did the rest of OPEC.
Global oil prices went into free fall, declining from over $30 a barrel in November 1985 to nearly $10 by July 1986. The U.S. oil industry basically shut down. In late 1985, there were nearly 2,300 rigs drilling wells; a year later, there were barely 1,000.
Prices spiked upward a few years later, prompted by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But that didn’t last long, ending in 1991 once Operation Desert Storm pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and the fires set by retreating forces were put out. Afterward, prices remained low, bouncing between $15 and $25 until the end of the decade.
It wasn’t until about 2000 that supply began to struggle to keep up with rising demand. Global economic growth, especially in Asia, pushed demand for crude as the Chinese middle class began driving cars. Chinese oil imports, virtually nonexistent in 1985, have risen steadily ever since. On Tuesday, Chinese data hit a record of about seven million barrels a day.
Prices spiked in the summer of 2008, then plunged when the economy crashed and went into recession. But the price drop was brief and prices rebounded quickly. Today, demand for crude is growing, albeit slowly, around the world. The health of the global economy and Chinese appetite for fuel will have a significant impact on global and U.S. crude prices. An outside event—warfare or civil strife in a major crude-producing country—could raise prices again.
As in the past, Saudi Arabia is betting that low prices will force other producers to cut back. Falling prices will hurt U.S. output, but perhaps less than OPEC expected. The cost of producing oil from shale—especially in the new U.S. oil fields responsible for a huge upsurge in output—has been falling.
ConocoPhillips , a major U.S. oil producer, says it can make a profit on its U.S. shale wells as long as oil trades for more than $40 a barrel, a figure that has been falling in recent years. A Conoco spokesman said improved efficiency, better technology and a better understanding of the rocks helped the company reduce costs.

Which Oil Producers are Breaking Even?

And it is not alone. The expense of getting oil from the Eagle Ford Shale fell by about 15%, or $7.50 a barrel, last year, despite intense competition for rigs, truck drivers and oil-field services, says Pers Magnus Nysveen, head of analytics for Rystad Energy, a Norway-based global oil consultant. Costs could fall another 10% to 15% this year as some financially weak companies pull back and competition for services lessens.
“The key driver here is improved efficiency,” Mr. Nysveen says.
Companies like EOG Resources Inc. are drilling better wells faster. EOG said recently it takes 4.3 days to drill its average well in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, down from 14.2 days in 2012. What’s more, as it drills more of them, it has figured out how to locate wells to get the highest oil output.
Combining lowering costs and increasing output means that EOG says it can drill wells at $40 per barrel in North Dakota, South Texas and West Texas, while still earning a 10% return. We “pride ourselves on being a very efficient operator,” Billy Helms, EOG’s head of exploration, said at a recent industry conference.
Since oil prices began to fall, many companies have cut their capital spending plan for 2015 and the number of drilling rigs in the U.S. has fallen. But output has continued to increase.
Mike Rothman, president of Cornerstone Analytics, says that given the decreasing costs of drilling, it is not clear when shale output in the U.S. will fall.
“How quick will the response in shale oil be to this drop in prices? That is a big open question,” he says. “With shale, you are dealing with something very different.”

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Syriza turns Greek oligarchs from taboo subject to economic priority - Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6c55d1ba-980b-11e4-84d4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3OmjXWDmr

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c55d1ba-980b-11e4-84d4-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3OmmghRFA
Kerin Hope — Athens
They are Greece’s best-known tycoons, admired and loathed in equal measure for their vast wealth and deep political connections. While ordinary Greeks call them “diaplekomenoi” (the entangled ones) or “davatzides” (pimps), economists call them oligarchs because of their grip on the country’s business life. 
However they are described, their role in Greek politics and society is under scrutiny ahead of this month’s election.


The far-left Syriza party, which is tipped to win a snap general election on January 25, has declared war on the oligarchs if it comes to power. George Stathakis, the party’s shadow development minister, told the Financial Times last week that Syriza would end the practice of governments handing out television licences for free to their political friends and review contentious privatisation sales. Tackling the oligarchs’ grip on the economy “will be a priority” he said.
Such comments already mark a change from form in Greece, where the oligarchs’ influence has long been felt but seldom discussed — at least publicly.
“The real enemy to market competition in Greece is the oligarchy, but it’s a taboo subject — politicians don’t discuss it and the media don’t write about it,” says Aristides Hatzis, a professor of law and economics at Athens University.
One reason is that Greece’s private television channels along with influential news websites and daily newspapers are in many instances controlled by oligarchs with editorial influence.
A US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks said: “Greece’s private media outlets are owned by a small group of people who have made or inherited fortunes . . . and who are related by blood, marriage or adultery to political and government officials and/or other media and business magnates.”
Taming such figures will not be easy: No member of the close-knit oligarch community has yet been toppled by Greece’s seven-year economic crisis, even though their media outlets are believed by some analysts to have racked up almost €2bn in unserviced loans from local banks as advertising revenues collapsed and handouts from state-controlled companies disappeared. 
Still, they appear to have been weakened by the country’s severe recession and the fiscal constraints imposed by international creditors. 
“They’re still powerful but their activities have been affected by recent efforts to clamp down on tax avoidance, for example through offshore companies,” Mr Hatzis said.
The oligarchs’ political influence also stands to suffer when new legislation requiring political parties to produce audited accounts is implemented. One Athens-based economist, who declined to be identified, said it would be harder in future for any who funded politicians to keep them “on the payroll”. 
Greece has a long tradition of businesses relying on political contacts to push through deals — and of politicians seeking handouts from business to boost their electoral chances. 
Mr Hatzis calls it “a small country where trust is lacking and the rule of law is not well enforced.”
The scale of such dealing grew in the 1990s as Greece’s economy took off on the back of market liberalisation required by the EU and increased funding from Brussels for infrastructure and technology projects. 
Big contracts for EU-backed projects were shared among a small group of bidders. But occasional dust-ups over the largesse could spill into politics, sometimes with disastrous consequences. 
In one case, Constantine Mitsotakis, a reformist prime minister, blamed Socrates Kokkalis, the founder of Intracom, a telecoms equipment producer, for instigating the fall of his government in 1993 over the prospective sale of Greece’s state telecoms company OTE to a French group that would have used its own equipment supplier — a charge Mr Kokkalis denied. 
Intracom continued to sell equipment worth billions of euros to OTE, while its sister company Intralot provided automated gaming systems for OPAP, the state gambling monopoly. 
Mr Kokkalis’s influence expanded through the launch of a popular radio station run by his wife and the acquisition of Greece’s top football team, Olympiakos.
George Papandreou, the former socialist premier who resigned in 2011, also claimed he was brought down by oligarchs after a finance ministry campaign to tackle widespread fuel smuggling revealed a Balkanwide scam that cost Greece €3bn a year in lost taxes. 
“Several prominent bankers and industrialists were among those determined to see me go,” he told the FT.
The current generation of oligarchs, already well past normal retirement age, are gradually handing over their day-to-day operations to younger family members while retaining their power over politicians through handouts to finance their election campaigns and arranging access to television coverage.
Costas Bacouris, head of the Greek arm of Transparency International, the anti-sleaze watchdog, believes that — as ever — the oligarchs will try to adapt to changing circumstances. 
“They continue to wield influence but they’re taking a wait-and-see position with regard to future political developments,” Mr Bacouris says. “My understanding is that a number of them have been making contact with Syriza but it’s not yet clear with what outcome.”
Top oligarchs
Vardis Vardinoyannis: the 81-year-old patriarch of a Cretan family that controls MotorOil Hellas, Greece’s second-largest oil refinery, as well as a tanker fleet, a bunkering operation on Crete, an oil and gas exploration company and a five-star Athens hotel. The Vardinoyannis group controls one private television station, Star, and holds a minority stake in another, Mega Channel.
Michalis Sallas: the 64-year-old chairman of Piraeus Bank, which has become the largest Greek lender by taking over the healthy assets of two failed Cypriot banks and a Greek state-controlled bank during the crisis. A founding member of the PanHellenic Socialist Movement (Pasok) and former econometrics professor at Athens Panteios university, he has kept close ties since the 1980s with successive Greek prime ministers.
Spiros Latsis: the 69-year-old son of John Latsis, a London-based shipping billionaire who funded the UK Conservative party. The Latsis group is a partner with the Greek state in Hellenic Petroleum, the country’s biggest oil refiner. Last year Lamda Developments, its property arm, won a concession to develop Hellenikon, the coastal site of the former Athens International Airport. Lamda and its partners, Fosun of China and the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, made the only binding offer for the €5bn project, which a Syriza-led government may potentially cancel.
George Bobolas: the 86-year-old founder of Ellaktor, Greece’s leading construction company, who was accused by journalists and rivals in the 1980s of being a Soviet “agent of influence”. Mr Bobolas has always denied the allegation. The opposition Syriza party says it will review Ellaktor’s share of income from Attiki Odos, a profitable toll road to Athens airport if it comes to power. The Bobolas group is a minority shareholder in Mega Channel and controls Ethnos, a lossmaking daily newspaper. 
Dimitris Copelouzos: aged 64, Gazprom’s representative in Greece since the 1980s and founder of Copelouzos group, an energy and construction specialist. The group recently teamed up with the German airport operator Fraport to make the winning €1.2bn bid for a concession to operate 14 regional Greek airports that would drive the country’s tourist development over the next decade. Syriza has warned parliament may not ratify the deal.