company:morgan stanley

  • Morgan Stanley prévoit un renversement complet de la dynamique du dollar en 2019 (Sputnik)
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/international/15837-morgan-stanley-prevoit-un-renversement-complet-de-la-dynamique-du-d

    Selon la banque Morgan Stanley, trois dynamiques clés qui ont poussé le dollar à la hausse l’année dernière devraient s’inverser en 2019, plaidant en faveur de la dépréciation de la monnaie américaine.

    Un ralentissement cyclique dans le reste du monde, des risques croissants de protectionnisme et une politique monétaire souple et restrictive aux États-Unis ont « boosté » le dollar l’année dernière, ont expliqué à Bloomberg jeudi les stratèges de la banque Morgan Stanley sous la houlette de Hans Redeker. « 2019 ressemblera à un renversement de 2018 », ont-ils mis en garde.

    « La Réserve fédérale des États-Unis a annoncé une nouvelle hausse des taux d’intérêt et envisagé de suspendre la liquidation de son portefeuille d’obligations dans quelques trimestres. Sur le plan fiscal, cette année, on ne reverra pas (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_internationales #Actualités_Internationales

  • How the Disposable Straw Explains Modern Capitalism - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/disposable-america/563204

    Alexis C. Madrigal - Jun 21, 2018

    A straw is a simple thing. It’s a tube, a conveyance mechanism for liquid. The defining characteristic of the straw is the emptiness inside it. This is the stuff of tragedy, and America.

    Over the last several months, plastic straws have come under fire from environmental activists who rightly point out that disposable plastics have created a swirling, centuries-long ecological disaster that is brutally difficult to clean up. Bags were first against the wall, but municipalities from Oakland, California, (yup) to Surfside, Florida, (huh!) have started to restrict the use of plastic straws. Of course, now there is a movement afoot among conservatives to keep those plastics flowing for freedom. Meanwhile, disability advocates have pointed out that plastic straws, in particular, are important for people with physical limitations. “To me, it’s just lame liberal activism that in the end is nothing,” one activist told The Toronto Star. “We’re really kind of vilifying people who need straws.” Other environmentalists aren’t sure that banning straws is gonna do much, and point out that banning straws is not an entirely rigorous approach to global systems change, considering that a widely cited estimate for the magnitude of the problem was, umm, created by a smart 9-year-old.

    All this to say: The straw is officially part of the culture wars, and you might be thinking, “Gah, these contentious times we live in!” But the straw has always been dragged along by the currents of history, soaking up the era, shaping not its direction, but its texture.

    The invention of American industrialism, the creation of urban life, changing gender relations, public-health reform, suburbia and its hamburger-loving teens, better living through plastics, and the financialization of the economy: The straw was there for all these things—rolled out of extrusion machines, dispensed, pushed through lids, bent, dropped into the abyss.

    You can learn a lot about this country, and the dilemmas of contemporary capitalism, by taking a straw-eyed view.

    People have probably been drinking things through cylindrical tubes for as long as Homo sapiens has been around, and maybe before. Scientists observed orangutans demonstrating a preference for a straw-like tool over similar, less functional things. Ancient versions existed, too.

    But in 19th-century America, straws were straw, rye stalks, cut and dried. An alternative did not present itself widely until 1888. That year, Marvin Stone, a Washington, D.C., gentleman, was awarded a patent for an “artificial straw”—“a cheap, durable, and unobjectionable” substitute for natural straws, Stone wrote, “commonly used for the administration of medicines, beverages, etc.”

    Workmen created these early artificial straws by winding paper around a thin cylindrical form, then covering them in paraffin. Often, they were “colored in imitation of the natural straw.” Within a decade, these straws appeared often in newspaper items and advertisements across the country.
    A typical Stone straw ad from a newspaper in 1899 (Google Books)

    Advertising for the Stone straw describes its virtues and emphasizes the faults of the natural straw. Stone’s straws were free from TASTE and ODOR (natural straws were not). Stone’s straws were SWEET, CLEAN, and PERFECT (natural straws could be cracked or musty). You only had to use one Stone straw per drink (not always the case with natural straws).

    They worked. They were cheap. They were very popular and spawned many imitators because once an artificial straw had been conceived, it just wasn’t that hard to make them, tinkering with the process just enough to route around Stone’s patent. This could be read as a story of individual genius. America likes this kind of story.

    But in 1850, long before Stone, Abijah Fessenden patented a drinking tube with a filter attached to a vessel shaped like a spyglass. Disabled people were using drinking tubes in the mid-19th century, as attested to by a patent from 1870. These were artificial, high-value straws; rye was natural and disposable. But it wasn’t until the late 1880s that someone thought to create the disposable, artificial straw.

    Why?

    Americans were primarily a rural people in the early 19th century. Cities had few restaurants until the 1830s and 1840s. Most that did exist were for very rich people. It took the emergence of a new urban life to spark the creation of the kind of eating and drinking establishment that would enshrine the straw in American culture: the soda fountain.

    Carbon dioxide had been isolated decades before, and soda water created with predictably palate-pleasing results, but the equipment to make it was expensive and unwieldy. It wasn’t until the the gas was readily available and cheap that the soda fountain became prevalent. In the 1870s, their technical refinement met a growing market of people who wanted a cold, sweet treat in the city.

    At the same time, the Civil War had intensified American industrialization. More and more people lived in cities and worked outside the home. Cities had saloons, but they were gendered spaces. As urban women fought for greater independence, they, too, wanted places to go. Soda fountains provided a key alternative. Given the female leadership of the late-19th-century temperance movement, soda fountains were drafted onto the side. Sodas were safe and clean. They were soft drinks.

    By 1911, an industry book proclaimed the soda fountain the very height of democratic propriety. “Today everybody, men, women and children, natives and foreigners, patronize the fountain” said The Practical Soda Fountain Guide.

    Temperance and public health grew up together in the disease-ridden cities of America, where despite the modern conveniences and excitements, mortality rates were higher than in the countryside. Straws became a key part of maintaining good hygiene and public health. They became, specifically, part of the answer to the scourge of unclean drinking glasses. Cities begin requiring the use of straws in the late 1890s. A Wisconsin paper noted in 1896 that already in many cities “ordinances have been issued making the use of wrapped drinking straws essential in public eating places.”

    But the laws that regulated health went further. A Kansas doctor campaigned against the widespread use of the “common cup,” which was ... a cup, that many people drank from. Bans began in Kansas and spread.
    The Cup Campaigner

    In many cases, this cup was eventually replaced by the water fountain (or paper cups). Some factories kept the common cup, but purchased straw dispensers that allowed all to partake individually. “The spectacle of groups of able-bodied men standing around drinking water through straws and out of a common, ordinary drinking cup, prompted no end of facetious comment,” read an item in the Shelbina Democrat of October 11, 1911.

    Cup and straw both had to be clean to assure no germs would assail the children (or the able-bodied men). So even the method by which straws were dispensed became an important hygienic indicator. “In some stores, customers are permitted to choose their own straws, and this system would work very well if customers would not finger the straws,” The Practical Soda Fountain Guide lamented.

    That led to the development of the straw dispenser, which has a deep lineage. Already, in 1911, the thing existed where you individually pop a straw into reach. That’s it, right below, with the rationale written in: “Protects straws from flies, dust, and microbes.”
    The Practical Soda Fountain Guide

    To people living through the early 20th century, the straw was a creation of the new public-health regime. “Due to the ‘Yankee mania for sanitation,’ the [American] output of artificial straws has increased from 165 million in 1901 to 4 billion a year at present,” the Battle Creek Enquirer wrote in May 1924. “A manufacturer pointed out yesterday that, laid end to end, these straws would build an ant’s subway 16 times around the world at the equator.”

    Four billion straws! There were only 114 million Americans at the time, so that’s 35 straws per capita (though some were exported).

    Of course, straw making was improving through all these decades—mechanizing, scaling up—but the straw itself basically stayed the same. According to Sidney Graham—who founded the National Soda Straw Company in 1931, and who competed against Stone and other early straw manufacturers—in a 1988 history of the straw:

    Straws were uniform up until the 1930s ... They were tan in color, thin, and exactly 8.5 inches long. Then someone in the soda-bottling business started marketing eight-ounce bottles, and straws grew to 10.5 inches. Various soda fountains began mixing malted milks, and the old straws were too thin. So we started making them thicker. Still, they were all tan in color, like the original straws.

    In the interwar years, however, major changes came to straws. In 1937, for example, Joseph Friedman invented the bendy straw at his brother’s soda shop in San Francisco, leading to the design that’s prevalent today.

    But what happened to the straw industry is far more interesting than its (limited) technical advances. Three of the biggest names in the industry—Friedman’s Flexi-Straw Company; the Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, which made popular white straws; and Maryland Cup Corporation—have bumped around the last 80 years like corporate Forrest Gumps.

    As it turns out, all three companies’ histories intersect with each other, as well as with structural changes to the American economy. But first, we have to talk about McDonald’s.

    Let’s start with Ray Kroc, who built the McDonald’s empire. For about 16 years, beginning in 1922, he sold cups for the Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, rising to lead sales across the Midwest. “I don’t know what appealed to me so much about paper cups. Perhaps it was mostly because they were so innovative and upbeat,” Kroc recalled in his memoir, Grinding It Out. “But I sensed from the outset that paper cups were part of the way America was headed.”

    At first, selling cups was a tough job. Straws were cheap—you could get 100 for nine cents in the 1930s—but cups were many times more expensive. And besides, people could just wash glasses. Why would they need a paper cup? But America was tilting toward speed and disposability. And throwaway products were the future (“innovative and upbeat”). Soda fountains and their fast-food descendants were continuing to grow, spurring more sales of cups and straws. In the end, Kroc called the years between 1927 and 1937 “a decade of destiny for the paper-cup industry.”

    Selling all those cups brought Kroc into contact with soda fountains, and eventually he went into business selling milkshake mixers. This led him to Southern California, where he saw the first McDonald’s in operation. He bought his way into the small company and deposed the original owners. With Kroc growing the brand, McDonald’s added 90 franchises between 1955 and 1959. By 1961, Kroc was fully in control of the company, and by 1968, there were 1,000 McDonald’s restaurants.
    The first McDonald’s that Ray Kroc opened in Des Plaines, Illinois, is now a museum dedicated to the burger chain. (Reuters/Frank Polich)

    The restaurant chain became a key customer for Maryland Cup, which began as an ice-cream-cone bakery in Boston. Its first nonfood product launched under a brand that became nationally famous, Sweetheart. That product? The straw. The name derived from the original packaging, which showed “two children sharing a milkshake, each drinking from a straw and their heads forming the two curved arcs of a heart.”

    After the war, the company went into cups, and later other kinds of packaging for the growing fast-food industry. It developed new products for McDonald’s, like those old foam clamshell packages that hamburgers used to come in. It also snatched up the Flexi-Straw Company—along with all its patents and rights—in 1969. Things were going great. The founder’s son-in-law was president of the company in Baltimore; one nephew of the founder ran the McDonald’s relationship; the other ran the plastics division.

    Because the future, at that point, had become plastics! In 1950, the world produced 1.5 million tons of plastic. By the late 1960s, that production had grown more than tenfold. Every product was being tried as a plastic thing, and so naturally, the straw became a plastic thing, too. It didn’t happen overnight. It took years for paper straws to lose their cultural salience.

    While functionally, paper and plastic straws might have seemed the same, to the keen observer who is the narrator of Nicholson Baker’s dazzling 1988 novel, The Mezzanine, the plastic and paper straw were not interchangeable. Paper did not float. Plastic did: “How could the straw engineers have made so elementary a mistake, designing a straw that weighed less than the sugar-water in which it was intended to stand? Madness!”

    Baker’s narrator wonders why the big fast-food chains like McDonald’s didn’t pressure the straw engineers into fixing this weighting mistake. “[The chains] must have had whole departments dedicated to exacting concessions from Sweetheart and Marcal,” Baker writes.

    But there was a problem: lids, which had come into vogue. Plastic straws could push through the little + slits in the cap. Paper ones could not. The restaurant chains committed fully to plastic straws.

    Baker goes on to imagine the ramifications, painting a miniature portrait of the process of path-dependent technological choice, which has helped shape everything from the width of railroad tracks to the layout of your keyboard. The power players went plastic, so everyone had to go plastic. “Suddenly the paper-goods distributor was offering the small restaurants floating plastic straws and only floating plastic straws, and was saying that this was the way all the big chains were going,” Baker writes. Sometimes it all works. Other times, a small pleasure is lost, or a tiny headache is created: “In this way the quality of life, through nobody’s fault, went down an eighth of a notch.”

    I can’t prove that this was the precise series of events that took hold among straw engineers, cup distributors, and McDonald’s. Most corporate decision-making of this kind simply doesn’t stick in the nets of history. Yet these differences influence the texture of life every single day, and ever more so, as the owners of corporations become ever further removed from the products they sell. Let’s just say that the logic Baker describes, the way he imagines the development and consequences of these forgettable technologies, squares with the histories that we do know. The very straw engineers that Baker describes might well have been working in the plastics division of the Maryland Cup Corporation, owners of the Sweetheart brand.

    Baker was writing in the 1980s, when straws of all kinds had begun to proliferate, and the American economic system entered a period of intense consolidation and financialization. A key component of this new form of capitalism was the “leveraged buyout,” in which private-equity firms descended on old companies, sliced them up, took out huge amounts of debt, and sold off the various components, “unlocking value” for their investors. You might remember this was how Mitt Romney made his fortune. Matt Taibbi described the model in acerbic but not inaccurate terms: “A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place.”

    Global competition and offshoring enabled by containerized trade was responsible for some of the trouble American manufacturing encountered in the 1970s and 1980s. But the wholesale restructuring of the economy by private-equity firms to narrow the beneficiaries of business operations contributed mightily to the resentments still resounding through the country today. The straw, like everything else, was swept along for the ride.

    In the early 1980s, Maryland Cup’s family-linked executives were on the glide path to retirement. Eighty family members held about half the company’s stock. In 1983, the company had $656 million in revenue, $32 million in profits, and 10,000 employees. It was the biggest disposable-food-product manufacturer in the nation, an empire built on cups, straws, and plastic silverware. The family was ready to cash out.

    The big paper and food companies circled Maryland Cup, but it was eventually sold for $534 million to Fort Howard, a paper company that had gone public in the early ’70s, and began to aggressively expand beyond its Wisconsin base.

    The sale was a boon for Maryland Cup’s shareholders, but the company did not fare well under the new management. Following the transaction, the Baltimore Sun relates, Maryland Cup executives flew to dinner with Fort Howard’s hard-charging CEO, Paul Schierl. He brought out a flip chart, on which he’d written the company’s “old” values—“service, quality, responding to customers.” He turned the page to show the company’s “new” values—“profits, profits, profits.” It’s like a scene out of Tommy Boy, or a socialist’s fever dream.

    Fort Howard forced deep cuts on the company. Some longtime managers quit. The trappings of the family company went out the window. No more executives dressing up as Santa Claus or local charitable contributions. And while Fort Howard was cutting people, it invested in expanding the company’s factories. This was just business. Schierl literally appeared at a sales meeting in a devil’s mask.

    Maryland Cup’s struggles intensified after the wave of departures that followed the acquisition. It needed customer volume to keep its new, bigger plants running, so Fort Howard snatched up the Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation in 1986 for another $332 million. Surely there would be synergies. More layoffs came.

    Two years later, the private-equity guys struck. Morgan Stanley, which had helped broker Fort Howard’s deals, swept in and snatched the company for $3.9 billion in one of those famed leveraged buyouts. The whole enterprise was swept off the public markets and into their hands.

    One of their moves was to spin out the cup business as Sweetheart Holdings—along with a boatload of debt jettisoned out of Fort Howard. Just eight years inside Fort Howard and a turn through the private-equity wringer had turned a profitable company into one that still made money on operations in 1991, but was $95 million in the red because it was so loaded up with debt.

    The company made layoffs across the country. Retirement health-care benefits were cut, leaving older employees so livid they filed a class-action lawsuit. A huge Wilmington factory closed after McDonald’s got rid of its plastic clamshell packaging for hamburgers, citing environmental concerns over plastic.

    In 1993, the company was sold again to a different investment group, American Industrial Partners. Eventually, it was sold yet again to the Solo Cup Company, makers of one-third of the materials necessary for beer pong. And finally, in 2012, Solo was itself sold to Dart Container, a family-owned packaging company that sells a vast array of straws under the Solo brand.

    Fort Howard continued on, going back public in 1995, then merging with another paper company, James River, in 1997, to become Fort James. Just three years later, an even bigger paper company, Georgia Pacific, snatched up the combined entity. In 2005, Koch Industries bought the shares of all the companies, taking the company back private. They still make straws.

    While bulk capitalism pushes hundreds of millions of plain plastic straws through the American food system, there are also thousands of variations on the straw now, from the “krazy” whirling neon kind to a new natural straw made from rye stalks advertised on Kickstarter (the entrepreneur calls them “Straw Straws”). There are old-school paper straws and newfangled compostable plastic straws. Stone Straw, founded by the inventor of the artificial straw, even survives in some form as the straw-distributing subsidiary of a Canadian manufacturing concern. Basically, there’s never been a better time to be a straw consumer.

    Meanwhile, the country has shed manufacturing jobs for decades, straws contribute their share to a dire global environmental disaster, the economy continues to concentrate wealth among the very richest, and the sodas that pass through the nation’s straws are contributing to an obesity epidemic that threatens to erase many of the public health gains that were won in the 20th century. Local governments may legislate the use of the plastic straw, but they can’t do a thing about the vast system that’s attached to the straw, which created first disposable products, then companies, and finally people.

    The straw is the opposite of special. History has flowed around and through it, like thousands of other bits of material culture. What’s happened to the straw might not even be worth comment, and certainly not essay. But if it’s not clear by now, straws, in this story, are us, inevitable vessels of the times in which we live.

    #USA #histoire #capitalisme #alimentation #plastique

  • Les banques de Wall Street reconnaissent que le dollar doit chuter. Les traders ne sont pas d’accord
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/international/15609-les-banques-de-wall-street-reconnaissent-que-le-dollar-doit-chuter-

    Alors qu’un nombre croissant d’analystes comme Morgan Stanley et Nomura prédisent des jours sombres pour le dollar, le marché raconte une autre histoire.

    La devise américaine s’est redressée de près de 1 pour cent depuis le jour de la surprenante réunion de la Réserve fédérale en janvier, effaçant ainsi toutes ses pertes de 2019. Et les perspectives s’améliorent en fait, selon le marché des options. Les contrats qui s’apprécient si le dollar s’apprécie par rapport à ses principaux homologues au cours des trois prochains mois sont près de leur niveau le plus élevé depuis la mi-décembre par rapport aux couvertures qui protègent contre une baisse.

    Le coût des options d’achat par rapport à celui des options de vente sur un panier à 7 semaines est le plus élevé.

    Bien que le (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_internationales #Actualités_Internationales

  • Cambridge Analytica est morte, vive Data Propria !
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2018/09/28/cambridge-analytica-est-morte-vive-data-propria_5361290_3234.html

    Au cœur d’un scandale d’exploitation de données d’utilisateurs de Facebook en 2016, la société a fermé, sans disparaître. D’anciens cadres ont pris la relève, pour servir Trump et les élus républicains.

    Après plusieurs mois de scandale, la société de marketing politique Cambridge Analytica a dû fermer définitivement, en mai 2018. Les médias et une partie de la classe politique américaine lui reprochaient d’avoir siphonné, puis exploité les données personnelles de 87 millions d’utilisateurs de Facebook au cours de la campagne électorale américaine de 2016, pour soutenir la candidature de Donald Trump et de divers candidats républicains grâce à des messages ciblés sur Internet et les réseaux sociaux.

    Exit donc Cambridge Analytica ? Pas vraiment ! En réalité, les équipes chargées de ces opérations ne se sont pas dispersées ; leurs algorithmes et leurs bases de données n’ont pas disparu. En fait, les stratèges électoraux du président Trump ont effectué une restructuration juridique et financière de leurs sociétés, sans se soucier de la tempête médiatique, qui s’est déjà essoufflée. Leur objectif à court terme est de mettre leurs talents au service des républicains lors les élections de mi-mandat, qui se dérouleront le 6 novembre. Par ailleurs, ils ont déjà lancé la campagne en vue de la réélection de Donald Trump en 2020.

    Au cœur de cette nouvelle galaxie gravite un Texan barbu mesurant plus de deux mètres, Brad Parscale. La trajectoire de M. Parscale, âgé de 42 ans , est singulière. Patron d’une petite entreprise Internet sise à San Antonio (Texas), il travaillait depuis 2011 comme simple designer et administrateur de sites Web pour le groupe immobilier Trump. Cela lui a donné l’occasion de rencontrer Donald Trump en personne, puis de gagner sa confiance. En 2015, le candidat milliardaire lui confie la création de ses sites électoraux, et le nomme, l’année suivante, directeur des médias numériques de sa campagne.

    Facebook, « l’autoroute » grâce à laquelle Trump a gagné

    D’emblée, M. Parscale mise sur les réseaux sociaux. Dans un entretien accordé en octobre 2017 à la chaîne de télévision CBS, il résume ainsi sa stratégie : « J’ai compris très tôt que Trump gagnerait grâce à Facebook. Il parlait aux gens sur Twitter, mais il allait gagner sur Facebook (…). Facebook a été sa méthode, l’autoroute sur laquelle sa voiture a roulé. » Pendant toute la campagne, son équipe bénéficie de l’aide directe d’employés de Facebook, dont certains sont installés dans ses locaux.

    Afin d’étoffer sa force de frappe, il passe un contrat avec Cambridge Analytica, qui l’aide à affiner le ciblage des électeurs dans les régions les plus disputées. L’une des techniques utilisées est la « psychographie », qui consiste à classer chaque cible uniquement en fonction de ses traits de caractère et de sa personnalité. En analysant le comportement d’un utilisateur sur Facebook, il est loisible de dresser son profil psychologique : est-il capable de s’ouvrir aux autres, est-il plus ou moins consciencieux, extraverti, agréable, névrosé ? Il sera ensuite possible de lui envoyer des messages politiques ou commerciaux dont le contenu et le style ont été conçus pour lui correspondre, et qui le toucheront réellement.

    Lorsque Brad Parscale rejoint le quartier général de campagne du candidat Trump à New York, il délègue la direction de son équipe, restée à San Antonio, à l’un des responsables techniques de Cambridge Analytica, Matt Oczkowski. Auparavant, M. Oczkowski avait fondé une agence de marketing spécialisée dans « l’analyse des motivations » des consommateurs et des électeurs. Il fut aussi le « directeur numérique » du gouverneur républicain du Wisconsin (nord) Scott Walker pendant trois ans.

    Après la victoire de M. Trump, Brad Parscale intègre le cercle des proches du nouveau locataire de la Maison Blanche. Il embauche même Lara Trump, l’épouse d’Eric, le fils cadet du président. Parallèlement, il se réorganise : il regroupe ses activités de publicité politique au sein d’une nouvelle entité, Parscale Strategy, qu’il transfère à Miami (Floride), et qui reste sous son contrôle exclusif. Puis, il vend l’autre département, chargé du marketing commercial, à CloudCommerce, une petite société californienne jusque-là spécialisée dans les logiciels de commerce en ligne, installée dans la station balnéaire de Santa Barbara. Du même coup, il devient actionnaire et membre du conseil d’administration du nouvel ensemble.

    « Science politique, big data et psychologie »

    En février 2018, M. Parscale est nommé directeur de la « campagne pour la réélection de Donald Trump en 2020 », c’est-à-dire chef de l’ensemble des opérations, au-delà du numérique. Dans le même, temps, sous son impulsion, CloudCommerce crée une nouvelle filiale de marketing numérique baptisée « Data Propria », enregistrée au Nevada (ouest), domiciliée en Californie et installée à San Antonio. La direction de Data Propria est confiée à Matt Oczkowsky, qui, dès son arrivée, embauche plusieurs de ses anciens collègues de Cambridge Analytica.

    Cependant, une chose intrigue : le profil du patron officiel de CloudCommerce, Andrew Van Noy, 36 ans. Dans son CV en ligne, M. Van Noy se vante d’avoir créé dès son adolescence une entreprise de jardinage très prospère, avant de se tourner vers la finance, comme tradeur à la banque Morgan Stanley. Mais, selon une enquête menée par l’agence Associated Press, la réalité serait moins reluisante : Andrew Van Noy fut, dans sa jeunesse, plusieurs fois condamné pour fraude immobilière et faillite douteuse. Quant à CloudCommerce, qui a changé quatre fois de nom depuis 1999, c’était jusqu’en 2017 une petite société sans envergure, qui n’avait dégagé aucun bénéfice depuis dix ans.

    L’apparition de Data Propria, en plein scandale Cambridge Analytica, n’est pas passée inaperçue. Fin juin 2018, trois élus démocrates de la Chambre des représentants de Washington envoient une lettre à Matt Oczkowsky pour lui demander de venir témoigner devant une commission. Ils veulent savoir s’il a hérité des bases de données frauduleuses de Cambridge Analytica, et s’il s’est procuré d’autres données de Facebook par ses propres moyens. Aucun élu républicain ne s’est associé à cette requête, et à ce jour, la Chambre des représentants n’a pas indiqué si Matt Oczkowsky lui avait répondu.

    Reste à savoir si les techniques « psychographiques » sont toujours à la mode chez les stratèges républicains. Echaudé par le scandale, Matt Oczkowski, de Data Propria, reste évasif, mais sur différents sites professionnels, il continue à s’enorgueillir de son passage chez Cambridge Analytica, où il a su « fusionner la science politique, le big data et la psychologie comportementaliste pour influencer les électeurs ». Il démarche aussi des grandes entreprises privées, notamment des compagnies d’assurances, en insistant sur la dimension psychologique de ses méthodes.

    La machine est relancée

    En revanche, Brad Parscale, dans des déclarations aux médias américains, émet régulièrement des doutes sur l’infaillibilité de la psychographie. Il semble partisan du retour à une forme de publicité politique axée sur les opinions, les valeurs et les préoccupations des cibles (par exemple « hommes de plus de 40 ans soucieux de l’état des infrastructures routières »). Cela étant dit, tous les stratèges s’accordent sur un point : le champ de bataille prioritaire sera la « Middle America », la classe moyenne laborieuse vivant dans les Etats du centre du pays, qui a porté Donald Trump au pouvoir en 2016 et qui pourrait le refaire en 2020.

    Par ailleurs, les stratèges du marketing ciblé vont aussi devoir s’adapter aux modifications récemment introduites par Facebook. Désormais, les annonceurs, commerciaux et responsables politiques ne peuvent plus croiser les données personnelles fournies par Facebook avec celles provenant des « data brokers » classiques (banques de données commerciales, bancaires…). Le réseau social veut ainsi faire un geste vers le Congrès américain et la Commission européenne, soucieux de la protection de la vie privée des citoyens, tout en marginalisant ses grands concurrents sur le marché des données personnelles.

    Il a aussi supprimé certaines combinaisons multicritères jugées intrusives ou trop précises – race, religion, pays d’origine, orientation sexuelle, handicaps, statut militaire… Enfin, les propagandistes politiques de tout bord doivent désormais communiquer leur nom, leur domicile et leurs sources de financement à Facebook, qui les vérifiera.

    Ces changements ne devraient pas entraver sérieusement l’action de Data Propria, qui a déjà noué des contrats avec la direction nationale du Parti républicain et les équipes de campagne de différents candidats conservateurs à travers le pays. De son côté, selon Associated Press, la société Parscale Strategy encaisse, depuis le début de 2018, près de 1 million de dollars (850 000 euros) par mois grâce à des commandes publicitaires d’organisations soutenant Donald Trump et ses alliés, contre 5 millions pour l’ensemble de 2017. La machine est relancée, les électeurs des régions jugées prioritaires sont de nouveau soumis à une avalanche de messages ciblés sur le Web et les réseaux sociaux.

  • Morgan Stanley: Google should give out free smart speakers to beat Amazon
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/morgan-stanley-google-should-give-out-free-smart-speakers-to-beat-ama.html

    Quand c’est gratuit, c’est toi le produit... once again.

    One top Wall Street firm believes Google’s parent company, Alphabet, needs take dramatic measures to compete with the success of the Amazon Echo.

    Morgan Stanley told its clients that the internet giant should defend its retail ad sales turf by giving away its Home Mini devices, and it wouldn’t cost that much.

    “We argue Alphabet needs more devices/smart speakers in people’s homes. The growth of voice shopping combined with Amazon’s expected install base advantage could threaten long term growth in Alphabet’s high-monetizing retail search category,” analyst Brian Nowak said in a note Thursday. “Like the mobile transition when Alphabet gave Android to OEMs and began paying Apple to power Safari search, we believe Alphabet should give away a Google Home Mini to every US (arguably global) household.”

    Nowak estimates Amazon will have 62 percent share of the U.S. smart speaker market at year-end 2018 versus 33 percent for Alphabet. The analyst projects more than 70 percent of U.S. households will own a smart speaker with voice commerce capabilities by 2022. He says it will “only” cost Alphabet $3.3 billion, which is a “small price to pay” given the opportunity.

    “We see voice shopping likely leading to faster eCommerce adoption…so in our view, the only question is whether/how much Alphabet will participate in voice commerce monetization,” he said. “More aggressive investment in a Google Home Mini giveaway could also drive the sum of parts [valuation] narrative.”

    Nowak also predicts Alphabet will miss the second-quarter earnings per share Wall Street consensus estimate by 1 percent due to currency effects and investment spending.

    He reiterated his overweight rating on the company’s shares and raised his price target to $1,250 from $1,200 because of Alphabet’s long-term opportunity to increase its profits.

    #Google #Commerce_électronique #Enceintes_connectées

  • British Labour leader Corbyn tells Morgan Stanley : ’We’re a threat’
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-politics-banking/british-labour-leader-corbyn-tells-morgan-stanley-were-a-threat-idUSKBN1DV4

    Morgan Stanley cautioned investors on Nov. 26 that political uncertainty in Britain was a bigger threat than Brexit given the risk of Corbyn winning power and then dismantling what was once seen as one of the world’s most stable free-market economies.

    “Bankers like Morgan Stanley should not run our country but they think they do,” Corbyn, a 68-year-old socialist, said in a video posted on Twitter that showed the towers of the City of London and Canary Wharf financial districts.

    “So when they say we’re a threat, they’re right: We’re a threat to a damaging and failed system that is rigged for the few,” he said.

  • Uber wants to disrupt the car loan and leasing industry
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/07/uber-wants-to-disrupt-the-auto-leasing-industry.html

    To many observers, the endgame of Uber’s auto market disruption is a world where you never own a car again.

    But there’s an irony in how Uber, (2016 CNBC Disruptor No.1), plans to get there: It’s making a big push into the hundred-plus billion-dollar auto financing market.

    Think about all the money that goes into leases and loans from captive financing units at Toyota, Honda and Ford, luring consumers into shiny new vehicles.

    Automobile financing amounts to $116 billion a year just in the United States, according to IBISWorld, all for the sake of car ownership — or something resembling it.

    Uber’s mission is very different than that of a car company. It wants more Ubers on the road by any means necessary, and the newer the car, the better. After all, it’s setting out to create the anti-taxi experience.
    The company created Xchange Leasing last year as a wholly-owned Uber subsidiary. For a $250 deposit, an Uber driver can lease a new midsize or economy car, be it a Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord or Toyota Prius.
    […]
    At a Chicago-area Nissan dealership, Xchange accounted for 41 percent of sales in May. In each of the first three months of the year, sales more than doubled from the same time in 2015, mostly because of Xchange deals, said a store executive, who asked that we not use his or her company’s name.
    […]
    Financing cars by the thousands is hugely expensive. Xchange secured a $1 billion credit facility led by Goldman Sachs, according to a person familiar with the matter. The facility was put in place last week and includes capital from Citigroup, Deutsche Bank AG (New York Branch), JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and SunTrust, the person said.

    The credit facility was previously reported by Bloomberg News.

    By the end of 2016, Uber expects that 100,000 cars will have been provided globally through the vehicle solutions programs, with $2 billion going toward car sales.

  • Le dernier Rapport d’Oxfam décrit pire que les Panama Papers

    But what is new in this report is the aspect of lobbying, and the implications that can be drawn from these corporation’s relationships with politicians.

    The total lobbying amount detailed in the report is around $2.6bn – or, as Oxfam themselves explained it: “For every $1 spent on lobbying, these 50 companies collectively received $130 in tax breaks and more than $4,000 in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts”.

    A case in point would be Morgan Stanley. Named the 21st most powerful company in the world in a 2011 study by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, they (according to Oxfam) have held over $7bn offshore, received more than $2tn in state handouts – all while paying an effective domestic tax rate of 7.9 per cent.

    When you compare these figures to the (relatively) paltry $23m they spent on lobbying, it would mean that for every $1 dollar they spent pushing the US Government on laws and regulations important to them, they got back an eye watering $92,000. Money extremely well spent, you could say. Neither is their lobbying particularly discreet, as paying $225k to Hillary Clinton for just one speech could be seen as questionable - when she had just stepped down as Secretary of State after pushing through free trade agreements which were touted as being platforms for easier tax avoidance and offshore accounting.

    https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3847/beyond-panama-why-oxfam-s-latest-tax-haven-report-matters

    #lobbying #lobby #fraude-fiscale #paradis-fiscaux #Etats-Unis #occident #Multinationales

  • Nine charged in $100m insider trading case tied to Ukraine hackers
    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/12/nine-charged-in-100m-insider-trading-case-tied-to-ukraine-hackers.html

    It was a symbiotic relationship that brought together the underbelly of Wall Street and the dark reaches of the online world.

    From their suburban homes in the United States, dozens of rogue stock traders would send overseas hackers a shopping list of corporate news releases they wanted to get a sneak peek at before they were made public. The hackers, working from Ukraine, would then deliver how-to videos by email with instructions for gaining access to the pilfered earnings releases.

    In all, 32 traders and hackers reaped more than $100 million in illegal proceeds in a sophisticated and brazen scheme that is the biggest to marry the wizardry of computer hacking to old-fashioned insider trading, according to court filings made public on Tuesday. One of the men, Vitaly Korchevsky, a hedge fund manager and former Morgan Stanley employee living in a Philadelphia suburb, made $17 million in illegal profits, the indictment said.

  • Vers l’autonomie partagée ? - Don Anderson
    http://alireailleurs.tumblr.com/post/119587791885

    Sur son blog, l’anthropologue de l’université d’Arizona, Don Anderson réagit à la publication par Adam Jonas, analyste financier chez Morgan Stanley des 4 étapes de la mobilité (.pdf), une matrice qui souhaite expliquer le passage d’un modèle de déplacement centré sur la voiture à un modèle bien plus autonome : “l’autonomie partagé” fait de voiture autonomes qu’on utilise à la demande, comme l’imaginait une récente étude de l’OCDE. Le graphique souhaite représenter l’évolution de la mobilité, allant de notre mobilité #automobile actuelle, à l’économie du partage, à une autonomie appropriée (un modèle où chacun est propriétaire de son véhicule autonome), jusqu’à l’autonomie partagée, l’idéal de la mobilité.Don Anderson, un anthropologue très critique de l’économie collaborative qui a écrit de nombreux articles sur Uber et (...)

    #prospective #mobilité #économie_collaborative

    • Raaah - luttons contre cette novlangue qui cherche à parer la location des atours du partage. L’économie du partage n’est rien d’autre que de la location - je le rappellerai chaque vois que je rencontrerai cette imposture ! Rien de mal à la location d’ailleurs - c’est souvent économiquement efficient pour tous les acteurs... Mais ce n’est pas du partage.

  • Pour piloter son nouveau groupe média, baptisé pour l’heure « Mag & NewsCo » , et qui a vocation à regrouper tous ses médias (« L’Express », mais aussi « L’Expansion », « Mieux vivre votre argent », « Lire », « Studio Ciné Live », etc. - des titres en cours de rachat - ainsi que « Libération » et la chaîne d’information israélienne i24), il [Patrick Drahi, Altice] a choisi, selon nos informations, Bernard Mourad, son banquier d’affaires chez Morgan Stanley [Plus exactement le « managing director » en charge du secteur #médias & #télécoms]

    http://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/medias/0204122603582-un-banquier-a-la-tete-de-lexpress-et-liberation-1088884.php

  • Un banquier prendra la tête de Libération et L’Express
    http://www.brujitafr.fr/2015/02/un-banquier-prendra-la-tete-de-liberation-et-l-express.html

    Bernard Mourad, banquier d’affaires de Morgan Stanley, sera nommé à la présidence du nouveau groupe de médias de Patrick Drahi et sera chargé de le développer à l’international, révèlent Les Echos.

    Un homme de confiance du patron d’Altice Patrick Drahi prendra la présidence de son nouveau groupe de média "Mag&NewsCo", qui regroupera Libération, l’Express, l’Expansion et la chaîne d’information israélienne i24news, notamment. Il s’agit de Bernard Mourad, un banquier d’affaires de Morgan Stanley, révèlent Les Echos, dimanche 1er février.

    Ce fils de cardiologue libanais accompagne Patrick Drahi depuis 10 ans sur tous ses "deals" télécoms, rappelle le quotidien économique. Il est aussi le créateur de l’application MySOS, un réseau social mettant en (...)

  • CADTM - Les banques spéculent sur les matières premières et les aliments
    http://cadtm.org/Les-banques-speculent-sur-les

    Via leurs activités de trading, les banques sont les principaux spéculateurs sur les marchés de gré à gré et à terme de matières premières et de produits agricoles car elles disposent de moyens financiers nettement plus élevés que les autres protagonistes en jeu. Une petite visite sur le site du Commodity business awards |1| permet de découvrir une liste de banques et de courtiers qui jouent un rôle de premier plan sur le marché des commodities |2| (que ce soit le marché où les matières premières s’achètent et se vendent physiquement), ou sur celui des dérivés qui ont pour sous-jacent des commodities. Parmi ces banques, on retrouve le plus souvent BNP Paribas, Morgan Stanley, Crédit Suisse, Deutsche Bank et Société Générale. Certaines banques vont d’ailleurs plus loin et se dotent d’instruments pour influer directement sur des stocks de matières premières. C’est le cas du Credit Suisse qui est associé à Glencore- Xstrata, la plus grande société mondiale de courtage en matières premières |3|. Parmi les banques européennes, BNP Paribas est avec Deutsche Bank une banque des plus influentes sur le marché des commodities, elle joue un rôle clé dans le secteur des dérivés sur les matières premières |4|.

    Plusieurs banques des États-Unis sont allées plus loin que les européennes dans la stratégie de contrôle d’une part du marché des commodities, il s’agit de JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley et Goldman Sachs. Par exemple, JP Morgan a importé aux États-Unis 31 millions de barils de pétrole au cours des quatre premiers mois de l’année 2013 ! Les banques des États-Unis sont propriétaires de raffineries de pétrole, de centrales électriques, de réseaux de distribution d’énergie, d’entreprises de stockage de métaux, de stocks de produits agricoles, d’entreprises d’exploitation de gaz de schiste… Comment en est-on arrivé là ? La Fed a autorisé en 2003 la banque universelle Citigroup à acheter la société de courtage Phibro en expliquant qu’il était normal de compléter l’activité de la banque sur le marché des dérivés de commodities par la détention physique de stocks de matières premières (pétrole, grains, gaz, minerais…). Quant à Morgan Stanley et Goldman Sachs qui jusqu’en 2008 |5| avaient le statut de banque d’affaires, elles ont pu dès 1999, grâce à la loi de réforme bancaire qui a complété l’abrogation du Glass Steagall Act, faire l’acquisition de centrales électriques, de tankers pétroliers et d’autres infrastructures. C’est ainsi que Morgan Stanley possède des barges, des tankers, des pipelines, des terminaux pétroliers et gaziers ! De son côté, JP Morgan a acheté la division commodities de RBS en 2010 pour 1,7 milliard de dollars, ce qui lui a permis d’acquérir 74 entrepôts de stockage de métaux au R-U comme aux États-Unis, tandis que Goldman Sachs en détient 112. Ces deux banques détiennent donc ensemble plus d’entrepôts de stockage de métaux que Glencore (qui en possède 179). Détenir des entrepôts de stockage est fondamental notamment si une société ou un cartel de plusieurs sociétés (par exemple des banques) veut spéculer sur les prix en stockant au maximum pour faire monter les prix ou en déstockant pour les faire baisser. C’est ce qui s’est passé concrètement par exemple sur le marché de l’aluminium depuis 2008. Selon une enquête menée par le New York Times, depuis que Goldman Sachs a racheté en 2010 les entrepôts d’aluminium à Detroit, le temps d’attente pour être livré en barres d’aluminium est passé de 6 semaines à 16 mois. Les prix ont nettement augmenté (alors que l’offre et les stocks d’aluminium sur le marché mondial se sont accrus), ce qui a provoqué de fortes réactions d’entreprises comme Coca-Cola et le brasseur Miller, gros consommateurs d’aluminium pour la fabrication des canettes… Rien qu’en revenus de stockage d’aluminium à Detroit, Goldman a engrangé 220 millions de dollars |6|....

    #banque
    #banksters
    #spéculation sur les #matières-premières et les #aliments

  • Stanley autour de la pénurie de vin à venir... Bon et bien je suis à la recherche de ce rapport pour le lire en vrai, pas des analyses foireuses, mais je n’ai pas encore réussi à le trouvé ... le seul lien qui me semble intéressant est sur un blog de Reuter, mais le lien ne fonctionne plus !

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/11/01/theres-no-global-wine-shortage

    Still, it was the classic single-source article: it basically took one Morgan Stanley report, reproduced a bunch of the key charts, and added a clickbaity headline.

    #wine #morgan-stanley #report #mystery

    MAJ et voilà j’ai fini par mettre la main dessu !
    https://zen.nzherald.co.nz/tempdata/uploads/MS%20on%20GLobal%20Wine.pdf

  • Les profits des négociants de matières premières dépassent ceux des banques
    http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2013/04/16/les-profits-des-negociants-de-matieres-premieres-depassent-ceux-des-banques_

    Les chiffres donnent le tournis. Les vingt plus gros négociants de matières premières au monde ont empoché près de 250 milliards de dollars (191 milliards d’euros) au cours de la dernière décennie, devant les géants du secteur automobile (179 milliards d’euros sur la même période de 2003 à 2012 pour Toyota, Volkswagen, BMW, Renault et Ford) et bancaire (171 milliards d’euros pour JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs et Morgan Stanley).

    Les chiffres d’affaires font encore davantage vaciller : les revenus des dix plus gros négociants en 2012 tournent autour de 916 milliards d’euros, soit l’équivalent du PIB de la Corée du Sud. Toutes ces données, compilées par le Financial Times, dessinent un paysage impressionnant et jusqu’ici méconnu puisque rares sont les négociants cotés en Bourse et contraints à un minimum de transparence financière – des entreprises peu ou pas régulées, comme la plupart des grandes multinationales opérant dans des pays en développement.

    #agriculture

  • 737 maîtres du monde contrôlent 80 % de la valeur des entreprises mondiales - Capitalisme - Basta !
    http://www.bastamag.net/article1719.html

    Enfin, au sein de ce groupe de 147 multinationales, 50 grands détenteurs de capital forment ce que les auteurs appellent une « super entité ». On y retrouve principalement des banques : la britannique Barclays en tête, ainsi que les « stars » de Wall Street (JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley…). Mais aussi des assureurs et ds groupes bancaires français : Axa, Natixis, Société générale, le groupe Banque populaire-Caisse d’épargne ou BNP-Paribas. Les principaux clients des hedge fund et autres portefeuilles de placements gérés par ces institutions sont donc, mécaniquement, les maîtres du monde.

  • Fed Handed Out $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans Amid Crisis - YouTube
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWrphXxKe4Q&feature=player_embedded

    Aug. 22, 2011 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve’s unprecedented effort to keep the economy from plunging into depression included lending banks and other companies as much as $1.2 trillion of public money. The largest borrower, Morgan Stanley, got as much as $107.3 billion, while Citigroup Inc. took $99.5 billion and Bank of America Corp. $91.4 billion, according to a Bloomberg News compilation of data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, months of litigation and an act of Congress. Erik Schatzker and Sara Eisen report on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.”

  • Enter the Cyber-dragon | Vanity Fair
    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/09/chinese-hacking-201109

    #Hackers have attacked America’s defense establishment, as well as companies from Google to Morgan Stanley to security giant #RSA, and fingers point to #China as the culprit. The author gets an exclusive look at the raging #cyber-war—Operation Aurora! Operation Shady rat!—and learns why Washington has been slow to fight back.

    (article pas clair mais contenant des infos semble-t-il inédites sur l’outsourcing de la recherche des auteurs des attaques contre RSA)

  • Les actifs de BNP Paribas dépassent le PIB de la France
    http://www.lesmotsontunsens.com/les-actifs-de-bnp-paribas-depassent-le-pib-de-la-france-8423

    Le décompte de Bloomberg a de quoi faire frémir. Les actifs de BNP Paribas ont augmenté de 34% sur les trois dernières années, pour atteindre 2 240 milliards d’euros... soit plus que les actifs de Bank of America (la plus grande banque américaine) et de Morgan Stanley réunis ! Et, surtout, plus que le produit intérieur brut (PIB) français ! Logiquement, une telle niouze aurait dû faire les choux gras de la presse nationale, toujours prompte à enfourcher le coq pour hisser haut notre magnifique drapeau tricolore. Sauf qu’il aurait été difficile d’évoquer cette étude sans... rapporter l’analyse qui va avec.

    #argent #richesse #bankdits #for:rezo.net #for:c.lapartgers.cci.fr #for:comitedesalutpublicgmail.com #for:etienne.pottiergmail.com #for:jluckinoks.org #for:maxime.marviergmail.com #for:ruffinfryahoo.com #for:twitter