Orlen podał wyniki finansowe za 2024 rok. Duży spadek, za to hojna dywidenda

since then, American families have lost more than $7 trillion in equity in their homes. There's been a lot of foreclosures, but guess who's buying up those foreclosed homes? 00:12:49 It's big capital. They're stepping in and now they're financializing houses.

One economist we talked about, talked to us about this and said, we don't really make that distinction in our society, and we need to start making it.

I have a financial advisor who came to me with an investment opportunity, not that I'm some big mucky muck, but I have a little bit of investments and it was investing in wind. And I read through the materials and I was, and I went to my advisor and I said, so am I actually investing in the productive growth and development of wind farms?

when we're investing in the stock market, we're mostly just hoping that the value of those shares will rise. That money is not actually reaching companies and being used in productive ways. And that's true. We can see it with private equity too.

we're not in the economy of the 1950s anymore. And we act as though we are, that finance is this productive force and it's building, it's building wealth. Well, for the most part, it's not. It's, there's so much financialization, so many financial assets, that they've become an extractive force. And a big piece of this 00:06:37 is that we're not really distinguishing between productive investments and speculative investments

Ngân hàng Nhà nước đẩy mạnh kiểm soát, phòng ngừa và ngăn chặn các giao dịch thẻ quốc tế không phù hợp

Với các kênh chuyển tiền qua sàn giao dịch tiền ảo, do Việt Nam chưa công nhận nên vẫn chưa có hành lang pháp lý để quản lý. Song dù có công nhận loại tiền này thì việc quản lý khá phức tạp, đòi hỏi sự vào cuộc và liên kết của nhiều bộ, ngành. 

A common good (CG) process begins with an initiator proposing the production of a common good. Then, during the predefined lifetime of the process, funders who care about this common good may pledge funds for its production, being reassured that their money will only be used retroactively, had the common good been eventually produced — no risk taken. Executors who wish to produce the common good may do so, being reassured that they will be compensated by the pledged funds had they been successful. And profit-seeking investors may buy a portion of the potential reward from executors (in the form of per-executor tokens that are made redeemable against the future reward had they been successful), and by that provide them with liquid funding for operation. Finally, if and when executors achieve the desired outcome, as decreed by a predefined judge, the pledged funds are released as a reward to the successful executors and the investors who bought their tokens. If no success has been reached after some predefined limit of time, the funds go back to the funders who provided them. Executors and investors only see profit, and funders only spend it, if and only when the common good is produced.

Investing, in simplest terms, is taking one finite resource and trying to allocate it to maximize for an ideal outcome. Whether you’re allocating money, time, energy, or attention. Everyone is an allocator of something. Investing is an opportunity to evaluate what you believe. To gain conviction. And then to act on that conviction.

I love investing because I love ideas. People sometimes talk about ideas as being “a dime a dozen.” The limitation on any idea is the infrastructure that lets it expand

“There is a shrinking pool of candidates to own stock in public coal companies,” said Mr. Stetson, whose company is publicly traded.

Meanwhile, the value of an exchange-traded fund of global coal companies has lost nearly 40% of its value since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, as the value of the S&P 500 index increased by about half.

Meanwhile the rise of “ESG” or environmental, social and governance investing is constricting the industry’s ability to obtain capital, current and former executives say. As major investors such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, turn away from coal over concerns about climate change, coal companies are struggling to secure the insurance they need to operate. That hurts not only companies that mine the thermal coal used to generate electricity, but also those that mine metallurgical coal to make steel. Contura Energy Inc., one of the nation’s largest producers of coal for steelmaking, has seen insurers and bonding providers flee the industry over the past two years. “If they can cut off your financing, they cut off your ability to function as a company,” said David Stetson, the Tennessee-based company’s chief executive. He and other executives expect to see more American coal companies go private in coming years. Firms such as Westmoreland Coal Co. and Cloud Peak that were publicly traded before filing for bankruptcy are emerging as private entities or selling assets to private firms.

Swensen argues against corporate bonds (they “serve no valuable portfolio role”). Hedge funds, venture capital and leveraged buyouts “belong only in the portfolios of the handful of investors with the resources and fortitude to pursue and maintain a high-quality active management programme”. Many investors will disagree on some points (they may want to hold gold, they may think active funds can play a role), but the warning to avoid the temptation of alternative investments is one to heed.

That’s why Swensen recommends the opposite for private investors in his book Unconventional Success. This was published in 2005 and the investment business has moved on in a few respects, but the message remains relevant. Investors should build a portfolio around six core asset classes that have distinctively different properties: domestic shares, international shares, emerging market shares, real estate investment trusts, government bonds and index-linked government bonds. And they should implement this through cheap index funds. 

Some investors will assume that even if they can’t earn the 60% of outperformance that came from top managers, they can still get the 40% that comes from more exotic asset allocation. But in alternative assets, it rarely works that way. Performance is highly skewed: a small number of managers do very well, while a large number do rather poorly. The underperformance from a pool of inferior managers will often wipe out all the theoretical outperformance you’d expect from the asset class, leaving you worse off than if you’d kept it simple.

Plenty of endowments, pension funds and other institutions have failed in their attempt to emulate the Yale model, and most private investors are likely to do even worse if they try to copy Swensen’s approach.Advertisement - Article continues belowThe main reason hides in plain sight in Yale’s own analysis of its returns. Only 40% of its outperformance is due to asset allocation; the rest is due to the manager’s selection. Yale has a skilled team and a rigorous process dedicated to finding the best managers – an edge that is much harder to duplicate than simply copying its current asset allocation (see chart). What’s more, Yale’s clout and network gives it access to high-performing funds that aren’t available to many institutions, let alone individuals.

High yield: This is last on the list for a reason. A high yield is obviously preferable to a lower one, but only if the other four criteria are met. A high dividend is only as strong as the business that supports it, so compare dividend yields after you make sure the business is healthy and the payout is stable.

Durable competitive advantages: This is perhaps the most important feature to look for. A durable competitive advantage can come in several forms, such as a proprietary technology, high barriers to entry, high customer switching costs, or a powerful brand name, just to name a few.

Steady revenue and earnings growth: When looking for the best dividend stocks to own for the long term, prioritize stability in the companies you consider. Erratic revenue (up one year, down the next) and all-over-the-board earnings can be signs of trouble.

History of raises: It's a very good sign when a company raises its dividend year after year, especially when it can continue to do so during recessions and other tough economic times like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Payout ratio: A stock's payout ratio is the amount of money it pays per share in dividends, divided by its earnings per share. In other words, this tells you what percentage of earnings a stock pays to shareholders. A reasonably low payout ratio (say 60% or less) is a good sign that the dividend is sustainable.

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL): Tech giant Apple has been paying dividends for only a few years now, which is understandable given the rapid growth it experienced in the early years of the iPhone and iPad. Companies tend to choose to reinvest profits into the business while in "growth mode." Even so, Apple has an incredibly loyal customer base, and since its devices are designed to work well with each other, the company has a nice tech ecosystem that should keep its revenue strong. And, Apple's rapidly growing subscription services business is providing an expanding source of recurring revenue.

Welltower (NYSE:WELL): A real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on healthcare properties (particularly senior housing), Welltower should benefit from a long-tailed demographic trend as the older age groups of the American population gradually get much larger over the next few decades.

Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT): As one of the largest companies in the world, Microsoft has steadily increased its sales, and an especially attractive feature for dividend investors is its focus on recurring, or subscription-based, revenue sources. The company has a solid balance sheet with more cash than debt and a very low payout ratio that leaves tons of room to grow the dividend. Given its 19-year streak of dividend increases, we wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft joins the Dividend Aristocrats club soon.

Verizon (NYSE:VZ): Verizon enjoys utility-like income from its wireless communications and high-speed internet customers, and the fact that it has significantly less debt than others in the industry is appealing to many investors. Verizon is also more focused on its core business and should be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the transition to 5G mobile technology.

Target (NYSE:TGT): You may be noticing a common theme here -- Target sells products people need. It has done an excellent job of growing its online and omnichannel sales (such as by offering curbside pickup), and while sales in some of its departments -- such as electronics -- may suffer in recessions, it is generally a well-insulated business in tough times, which is why it has given investors 49 years of consecutive dividend raises.

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ): Like Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson owns a portfolio of excellent brands that make products people need -- specifically healthcare items. In addition to its Band-Aid, Neutrogena, Tylenol, Zyrtec, Benadryl, and Johnson's brands (among others), Johnson & Johnson has massive and steadily profitable operations in pharmaceuticals and medical devices, the combination of which has allowed the company to increase its dividend for nearly 58 years in a row.

Realty Income (NYSE:O): This is a real estate investment trust, or REIT, that primarily invests in single-tenant retail properties. Most of the tenants operate recession-resistant businesses like drugstores, dollar stores, and convenience stores, and they all sign long-term leases with gradual rent increases built in. Realty Income is one of the newest members of the Dividend Aristocrats, having joined the index in January 2020 after reaching 25 consecutive years of dividend increases. Note that the company hasn't missed a monthly distribution to investors in more than 50 years.

Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO): The beverage giant has been a fantastic dividend stock for generations and has increased its dividend for 59 consecutive years. While sugary soft drinks may indeed be in the early stages of a slow, long-term decline, it's important to realize there's much more to Coca-Cola. For example, Coca-Cola is the parent company behind the Dasani and Smartwater bottled water brands, Minute Maid juices, Simply juices (like Simply Orange), Honest Tea, Powerade, Vitaminwater, and more.

Procter & Gamble (NYSE:PG): Consumer products manufacturer Procter & Gamble has increased its dividend for an astonishing 64 consecutive years. It owns an impressive portfolio of consumer product brands, including Pampers, Downy, Tide, Charmin, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, and Crest, just to name a few. Not only do these brands give Procter & Gamble pricing power over rivals, but most of their products are items people need no matter what the economy is doing.

Yet, it certainly is important to make the proper choices when picking up style. Similarly to fashion, code style reflects our credo as developers, our values and philosophy. In order to make an informed decision, it’s mandatory to understand the issue at stake well. We all have defined class methods many times, but do we really know how do they work?

I don't think seeing it in Rails PRs naturally means we should do it blankly. Put it another way, what's the justification in those PRs for doing it?

why a company like Facebook invests so much research and engineering into the network performance of things as seemingly trivial as notifications.

never care and try to understand design standards

there is a substantial risk that the price of securities purchased on Republic may exceed their value and any amount for which they may eventually be resold. Furthermore, securities sold on Republic may provide investors with inferior terms than similar securities provided by a company in other offerings.

Republic collects from the startup 6% of the total amount raised and 2% of the securities offered in a successful financing.

You should use this information to determine whether a particular investment is appropriate for you.

Oops, I had not read your original description closely enough.

The only "issue" it has is that its unfamiliar. People have been working with HTML for years and are comfortable with it. That's basically the only reason that people find it more readable. If you make an effort to spend sometime with hyperscript, it becomes as familiar and readable as jsx.

I'm not sure I understand the problem, everything you are describing is already possible.

Considering that the vast majority of content currently consumed on the platform is a commodity (the same songs you'd find on any other service), I find those data points interesting. It suggests Spotify is connecting with its audience in a way that its competitors have failed to replicate (and despite the many advantages those larger competitors bring to the table). I think it's some combination of a better user experience, more advanced curation / discovery tools, and a cleaner (more focused) brand.

Unfortunately people lack the the time to invest to really understand those things

billionaire investor, George Soros, called the stock market a bubble. “Investors are in a bubble fueled by Fed liquidity,” he says and that’s why he “no longer participates.”

This is a perfect environment for gold to take center stage. Fanatical debasement of moneyby all of the world’s central banks, super-low interest rates and gold mine operation and extractionissues(to a large extent related to the pandemic)should create a fertile ground for this most basic of all money and storesof value to reach its fair value, which we believe is literally multiples ofits current price. In recent months,goldhas gone up in price to some degree, but we think that it is one of the most undervalued investable assetsexisting today. There is nothing else that has its historical and fundamental characteristics,and we think that itis only beginning its inexorable, but 11impossibletotimeand placeboundaries around, uptrend.The fact that it is so under-ownedby institutional investors is astonishing to us in light of the obsessively inflationary policies being pursued by central banks around the world

The potential opportunity setis primarily in credit. Of course,equities thathave fallen 20%, 30%or50% in a very short time can provide substantial upside, but in periodslike this one, we prefer the additional downside protection of carefullyresearched debt. The Holy Grail(which presented itself in size in 2008)is to have credit positions in which we have so much confidence andwhich have so muchconvexity (asymmetric return profiles; much more upside than downside) that hedges are either not needed or can be relatively small.A great example wasauto finance unsecured debt in 2008, which at the bottom was trading at levels thatanticipated many more defaults than at any time in history.Such credit positions fell in priceto many points below our “scientificallyderived”bedrock-bottom prices, but we had a lot of confidence in the ultimate repayment of the debt

Modern Portfolio Theory tells us to mitigate risk through diversification, but this tends to lower CAGRs (in the name of higher Sharpe ratios); one is then forced to apply leverage to raise the CAGR back up, which just adds back a different risk by magnifying the portfolio’s sensitivity to errors in one’s spurious correlation estimates. Diversification is unfortunately not “the only free lunch in finance” that it has been made out to be. So much risk mitigation is simply about moving from concentration (or typically beta) risk to levered model risk

The creation of a successful status game is so mysterious that it often smacks of alchemy. For that reason, entrepreneurs who succeed in this space are thought of us a sort of shaman, perhaps because most investors are middle-aged white men who are already so high status they haven't the first idea why people would seek virtual status

GPIF has selected FTSE Blossom Japan index, a new index compiled by FTSE Russell for the Japanese pension fund, as well as MSCI Japan ESG Select Leaders index and MSCI Japan Empowering Women index.

The outperformance of ESG strategies is beyond doubt. In emerging markets, the trend is particularly pronounced: the MSCI Emerging Markets Leaders index, which includes 417 companies that score highly on ESG, has been outstripping the dominant MSCI Emerging Markets benchmark since the 2008-09 financial crisis, with the outperformance gap reaching a record in June this year.

The BYD investment story is a small part of a much bigger trend. Investors are finding that if they are good to the planet and to people, they also end up, on average, benefiting themselves. There is mounting evidence that funds which observe environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards in their strategies tend to outperform those that don’t by a significant margin.

Ethical investing and ESG, although they are related, are different concepts. Ethical funds avoid harmful sectors; ESG, a more holistic investment approach, integrates ESG principles into portfolio decisions.

Qũy ETF SSIAMVNX50 do 4 thành viên sáng lập, gồm Công ty Chứng khoán Sài Gòn (SSI), Công ty chứng khoán Bảo Việt (BVSC), Công ty chứng khoán Ngân hàng Ngoại thương Việt Nam (VCBS) và Công ty chứng khoán VNDirect (VNDS). Theo bà Lê Lệ Hằng, Tổng giám đốc SSIAM, cho đến thời điểm này, nguồn vốn của quỹ ETF SSIAMVNX50  đều từ trong nước và chủ trương của Qũy cũng hướng đến dòng vốn nội địa.

Trong 2 tháng đầu năm, quỹ V.N.M đã huy động được 53.37 triệu USD, quỹ ETF nội thậm chí còn "khủng" hơn khi huy động thành công gần 100 triệu USD (2.266 tỷ đồng). Dòng tiền từ các quỹ đã làm điểm tựa cho thị trường trong thời gian này. Kết thúc tháng 2/2018 chỉ số VN index tăng 13,6% lên 1121,54 điểm.

hạn mức sau khi nâng lên 75 triệu đồng, theo số liệu từ Bảo hiểm Tiền gửi Việt Nam, đã đảm bảo bảo vệ được nhiều người gửi tiền nhỏ, thiếu thông tin về hoạt động ngân hàng (chiếm hơn 80% người gửi tiền)

SIPC is an insurance that provides brokerage customers up to $500,000 coverage for cash and securities held by the firm (although coverage of cash is limited to $250,000).

They don't get that individual components can compound at a lower rate, on average, than the overall portfolio or that several bankruptcies of different holdings along the way can still result in positive returns.

Specifically, Vanguard has $198,712,172,000 in that particular fund as of the end of 2014, of which $89,234,130,000 consisted of unrealized gains.  If Vanguard were to experience a significant run on the fund for whatever reason - and these things have, do, and will happen - management could be forced to liquidate those positions or, at the very best, pay them out "in kind".  This is something Vanguard investors have never had to consider because as indexing has become the latest fashion, it has been able to pay redemption requests with fresh deposits a lot of times, net assets growing in the long-run.  Should that stop, it could get ugly.

Final Thoughts About Investing in Index FundsWhere does that leave us?  My conclusions are fairly straightforward and, at the risk of repeating myself in sections, I'll share them with you:If your portfolio is modest, and you don't have a clue what you are doing, index funds are probably your best bet.  They are good enough for what you need and will likely save you from a lot of mistakes.  If your money is held captive in a 401(k) plan at work and you have to make allocation decisions, low-cost index funds are almost always going to be among the best choices you have at your disposal.  Seriously consider investing in them over the alternatives or, at the very least, making them a core part of your portfolio.If you are affluent or high net worth, enough to get economies of scale with your money, take advantage of certain planning and tax strategies, and have a lot of money outside of tax shelters, you are bonkers if you invest in the pooled, public index fund.  Instead, if you want to use an indexing approach, build a privately held index fund for yourself or pay someone like Goldman Sachs a meaningless handful of additional basis points to administer it for you.  There are few things nuttier than someone with millions of dollars sitting on taxable index funds when the dramatically superior alternative of a private index account is available.  In other words, take index funds for what they are: a potentially wonderful tool that can save you a lot of money and help you get a good foundation underneath you.  Once you are wealthy enough to have some real money behind you, consider bypassing the pooled structure entirely and owning the underlying components.  Beyond that, index funds are neither friend nor foe, virtuous nor evil.  They are a tool.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Use them when it suits you and is to your advantage, avoid them when they don't and aren't. Don't get emotionally attached to them or somehow be seduced by the lie that there is something magical about their structure that makes them superior to all else in the universe.If you do invest through index funds, I'd gently suggest you consider dollar cost averaging into a handful of core index funds, including an all-cap domestic and a developed market international, reinvest your dividends, ignore market fluctuations, and stay the course.  Let time do the heavy lifting for you and, if you have a long enough run and good enough luck, retirement should be more comfortable than it otherwise would have been.  There are a lot worse things you can do.

All that matters is 1.) which stocks you own, 2.) how those stocks are selected, 3.) the weightings assigned to those stocks, 4.) the costs relative to the services or benefits received, and 5.) the potential tax exposure.  Maybe you can get it through an index fund, maybe you can't.  Directly owned passive portfolios are going to be a better choice for a lot of successful people.

Making money from ETFs is essentially the same as making money by investing in mutual funds because they operate almost identically.

How you make money from an ETF will depend on the underlying investments of that ETF over time.That is, if you own a stock ETF that focuses on high-dividend stocks, you are hoping to make money from a combination of capital gains (an increase in the price of the stocks your ETF owns) and dividends paid out by those same stocks. Likewise, if you own a bond fund ETF, you hope to make money from interest income. If you own a real estate ETF, you hope to make money from the underlying rents, capital gains on property sales, and service income generated by the apartments, hotels, office buildings, or other real estate owned by the REITs in which the ETF has made an investment.

Australian dollar—viewed as a proxy for China's growth—spiked as much as up 1 percent against the greenback.