Gostava de saber qual a razão porque Cardozo foi expulso ao intervalo no jogo com o Braga e ainda castigado com dois jogos. Isto da internet é fantástico e a liberdade de imprensa ainda melhor.

Segue o vídeo:

Thirty global financial institutions make up a list that regulators are earmarking for cross-border supervision exercises, according to the Financial Times.
List includes:
Insurance companies – Axa, Aegon, Allianz, Aviva, Zurich and Swiss Re – which sit alongside 24 banks from the UK, continental Europe, North America and Japan.

Banks:
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Citigroup of the US; Royal Bank of Canada; UK groups HSBC, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Chartered; UBS and Credit Suisse of Switzerland; France’s Société Générale and BNP Paribas; Santander and BBVA from Spain; Japan’s Mizuho, Sumitomo Mitsui, Nomura, Mitsubishi UFJ; Italy’s UniCredit and Banca Intesa; Germany’s Deutsche Bank; and Dutch group ING.

The list has been drawn up by regulators under the auspices of the Financial Stability Board .

Después de ver la campaña de GAP en Vancouver en la que le daban la vuelta a toda una tienda, ahora Axa nos propone darle la vuelta a los créditos con esta campaña de la agencia Duval Guillaume y JCDecaux en la que no gira el mensaje, sino el soporte donde se inserta.

Vía Paperplane

La fundacin Axa de todo Corazón organiza un mercadillo solidario en el cual el 20% de beneficios irá destinado a la ONG Yamuna que trabaja en India y Madagascar para asegurar la integración familiar de los niños y adolescentes en situación de marginalidad, dotándoles de los medios necesarios para que gocen de una vida digna..
Axa de todo corazón es una asociación, creada con el fin de responder a las necesidades sociales existentes, tiene como objetivo colaborar con Asociaciones que se dedican a ayudar a discapacitados físicos y psíquicos, apoyo a la infancia, atención a los problemas derivados de la marginación social de nuestro entorno, fomentando su reinserción y tratando de paliar cualquier otra necesidad social de nuestra comunidad.

El evento tendrá lugar el Jueves 3 de Diciembre en las instalaciones de AXA en Sant Cugat del Valles.

Anyone who works in business knows the importance of language. Businesses, products, and services require names with the right connotations and associations. It is therefore of more than academic interest that around one in five young people are putting off starting a pension because they do not like the word ‘pension’, according to new research by YouGov.

The research, commissioned by AXA, has revealed that if all the one million 18 to 24 year olds continue to delay starting their pension by five years, this could potentially lead to a combined shortfall in their retirement income of more than £44billion.

In addition, almost 75% of 18 to 24 year olds associate the word ‘pension’ with old age, which AXA warns could result in the younger generation leaving things too late when it comes to retirement planning.

It appears young people are not alone with their dislike for the word pension, as around a fifth of the total population aged over 18 associate the word with ‘grey’, while one in ten people think the word is old-fashioned.

Porque no hay dos casas iguales
Elija la combinación perfecta para su hogar..

En AXA sabemos que cada hogar es diferente.

Nuestros seguros están diseñados para cubrir las necesidades de todo tipo de viviendas:

• Piso / Apartamento
• Chalet independiente / Adosado
• Casa Tradicional

Teniendo en cuenta el uso de la vivienda para garantizarle el mejor precio y el seguro más ajustado a sus necesidades reales, no es lo mismo una casa utilizada como:

• Residencia habitual
• Residencia ocasional ó secundaria
• De alquiler para uso por parte de terceros
• Desocupada (no utilizada ni habitual ni ocasionalmente)

Y aún así, vamos más allá, para nosotros un Seguro de Hogar es mucho más que una cobertura de Incendio, Robo, Hurto, Daños eléctricos y por agua, Responsabilidad Civil o Protección Jurídica.Todo esto lo tenemos y mucho más.

Hogar Seguro, porque no hay dos casas iguales, pídeme precio sin compromiso aqui.

Dispone de multitud de flexibles garantías para realizar justo el seguro que necesita.

Coberturas de daños a la vivienda derivados de:

• Incendio, explosión y rayo
• Eléctricos a las instalaciones ó aparatos
• Agua, con gastos de localización y reparación
• Cristales, loza y mármoles
• Fenómenos meteorológicos

COBERTURA AL 100% ¡¡SIN FRANQUICIAS!!

Coberturas de Robo, expoliación y hurto:

• En la vivienda o fuera de ella, con motivo de viajes
• Cobertura de atraco en la calle
• Uso indebido de tarjetas de crédito
• Gastos de sustitución de llaves y cerraduras

LOS LÍMITES DE INDEMNIZACIÓN, NO ESTÁN FIJOS, LOS MODIFICAMOS EN VIRTUD DE SUS NECESIDADES

Cobertura de Responsabilidad Civil por daños causados a terceros por:

• Actos de la vida familiar
• Derivados de la propiedad del inmueble
• Con una suma asegurada hasta 1.200.000 euros
• Cobertura de Defensa Jurídica y Reclamación de daños

Además de las coberturas de Incendio, Robo, Hurto, Daños eléctricos y por agua, Responsabilidad Civil, Protección Jurídica y Todo Riesgo Accidental, le interesa conocer porque nos destacamos, porque AXA cuenta con todo esto y mucho más:

Servicios urgentes de cualquier especialista que pueda necesitar, tras imprevistos que pueden surgir a cualquier hora, desde solucionarle una fuga de agua a las 3 de la madrugada, hasta enviarle un cerrajero un día festivo si no puede entrar en su casa.

Y si usted se decide a realizar una reparación, obras de reforma o mejora en su vivienda, ponemos a su disposición nuestra red de profesionales, corriendo a nuestro cargo los gastos de desplazamiento del profesional y el presupuesto oportuno.

Incluso tiene a su disposición Asistencia Informática, para solucionar incidencias que afecten a sus equipos informáticos. Desde asistencia remota, servicio de copias de seguridad, recuperación de datos, asistencia in situ… (Consulte las prestaciones y condiciones de servicio).

Y esto no es todo, son sólo algunos ejemplos de cobertura, ya que en AXA hemos desarrollado para usted garantías exclusivas como:

• Todo Riesgo Arte para sus bienes más preciados de valor artístico.

Reemplazo de los árboles y/o arbustos de su parcela que hayan podido sufrir daños..

Los regalos son una segunda opción en muchos casos, sin que exista un obsequio estándar. Las propuestas son variadas y dependen del importe de la aportación. Hay quienes ofrecen acciones, como Renta 4; otros, depósitos, como La Caixa o la CAM, o “cheques regalo” para reinvertir en cualquier producto, como Axa.

Bankinter ofrece un 3% de bonificación al traspasar un plan de pensiones desde otra entidad si la cantidad es superior a los 30.000 euros o un 2% si es inferior sin límite de bonificación. Las condiciones, un periodo de permanencia de 5 años a partir del 31 de enero de 2010. Otra entidad que ofrece una bonificación y se olvida de los regalos es Renta 4, si bien, la firma regala acciones de la compañía, hasta por un máximo del 2% del capital invertido

Openbank, por su parte, abona un interés del 10% anual por el número de días transcurridos, desde el momento en que se reciba la aportación o traspaso, hasta el dos enero del año que viene con un abono máximo por cliente de 1.000 euros brutos (siendo los importes mínimos de traspaso o aportación de 5.000 euros y 2.000 euros, respectivamente). Su rival online Uno-e, ofrece un abono en efectivo del 1% de las cantidades traspasadas o aportadas al plan, hasta un límite máximo de 500 euros.

Otra entidad que apuesta por las bonificaciones es la aseguradora francesa Axa, que obsequia con un “cheque regalo” para reinvertir en cualquiera de sus productos, con las siguientes condiciones: 0,50% para aportaciones/traspasos entre 5.000 y 9.999 euros; 0,75% para aportaciones/traspasos entre 10.000 y 29.999 euros o del 1,00% para aportaciones/traspasos a partir de 30.000 euro (con un límite de 1.000 euros).

Más información: Finanzas.com

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

The test results are as follows: Gottliebsen 90 per cent, Bartholomeusz 85 per cent, Frith 80 per cent, Durie 75 per cent, Maiden & Jury 70 per cent, Verrender 60 per cent, Stevens fail.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

Maze of Vacanti Mouse with human ear on his back

Maze of Mouse with Human Ear on his back. NEXT >>

Este es un spot comercial de la compañía AXA, dirigido y animado por Tronic, trata sobre como va evolucionando la humanidad representado como un hombre de papel el cual se va transformando en diferentes objetos que han sido de los mas imporantes en la historia.

Vía Illusion360

e.me

AXA-Chef de Castries:  Die nächste große Blase könnte im Markt für Staatsanleihen entstehen, denn die langfristigen Zinsen seien derzeit zu niedrig.

Staatsanleihen sind Risiko für Sparer.

Henri de Castries, Chef von Axa und damit des zweitgrößten europäischen Versicherungskonzerns, warnte in der ZEIT  vor neuen großen Risiken für Sparer.

Die nächste große Blase könnte im Markt für Staatsanleihen entstehen, denn die langfristigen Zinsen seien derzeit zu niedrig. “Das Beste wäre es, wenn sie gleichmäßig und im Aufschwung zunehmend stiegen. Aber wenn sie plötzlich nach oben schießen sollten, hätte eine ganze Reihe von Akteuren neue Probleme.”

De Castries ging in der ZEIT scharf mit der vorherrschenden Rechnungslegung nach dem aktuellen Marktwert, Fair Value genannt, ins Gericht. Sie führe zu “höchst prozyklischem Verhalten” und verkürze den Investitionshorizont: “Das wiederum schadet der gesamten Wirtschaft.”

Er plädierte stattdessen für ein Accounting, das bereichsspezifisch ist und die Fristen für Verbindlichkeiten mit den Bewertungszeiträumen der Aktiva korreliert. “Man braucht allgemein etwas mehr Distanz zum angelsächsischen System”, führte er aus, und: “Wir können nicht die Wall Street den Rahmen unserer Wirtschaft bestimmen lassen.”

Nach Ansicht des AXA Chefs sei Frankreich relativ gut durch die Krise gekommen: “Die Aufsichtsbehörden waren vorsichtiger als in anderen Ländern, und die Banken und Versicherungen hatten ein strengeres Risikomanagement. Wir haben auch nicht das Problem mit den Landesbanken wie Deutschland.” Außerdem begeistere man sich in Frankreich nicht so schnell wie im angelsächsischen Raum für ein bestimmtes Bankgeschäft.

In dem Gespräch mit der ZEIT kritisierte er die “laxe Geldpolitik” und die nicht funktionierende Finanzkontrolle in den Vereinigten Staaten.

Gefehlt habe überdies eine “zusammenhängende Aufsicht über die verschiedenen Märkte – sonst hätte man beispielsweise gesehen, dass der Versicherer AIG sich in unverhältnismäßige Gefahren stürzte”.

After London, it’s the Paris market that’s been giving the biggest and most promising signs of life. The WSJ is reporting that Tishman Speyers is expected to announce today it’s purchased an office building that houses AXA Corporate Services for $95m. The deal is thought to have been done by TS’s European Core Fund.

Paso a comentaros los valores del CAC 40 que os nombré anoche y que no os comenté:

ALCATEL-LUCENT: como se ha abierto posición, está comentada en el trading real ver entrada

ALSTOM: como se ha abierto posición, está comentada en el trading real ver entrada

AXA: Más de lo mismo, otra que da señal tras la caída de los últimos días. No se si superará R1 pero si no lo hace creo que los máximos de cada día irán pegados a R1 que como está en tendencia alcista, es subida igualmente. También es posible que R3 frene la subida. Yo pondría un stop-loss justo  por debajo de S1 para evitar riesgos y con los días lo iría subiendo. Para entrar, entraría con una orden de compra lo más cercana posible a S1, para hoy a 16.40€ y si no se ejecuta cada día la subiría un poco pero muy cercana a S1.

EADS: Este valor ya dió señal hace 2 sesiones pero no todos los días analizo todos los valores y estamos a tiempo de entrar. Hasta R1 y desde el cierre del viernes tenemos sobre un 5.60% creo que recortará un poco para continuar hasta R2, si quereis continuar hasta R2 utilizad el stop-loss. Aquí nos vamos a conformar con el primer objetivo.

ESSILOR: Es la que menos me gusta de estas 6 por su baja rentabilidad hasta el primer objetivo R1 sobre un 3% y después no me fio así que ya dejaría la orden para recoger bº y salir.

RENAULT: Me gusta porque desde mínimos de marzo ha hecho una remontada espectacular en cifras relativas. Desde el cierre del viernes hasta R1 hay algo más de un 10% y hasta R2 sobre un 18.50%.

Como siempre os digo, se podrá entrar largo, si el mercado viene alcista o bastante plano y al precio de compra más bajo que cada uno sea capaz a comprar.

Ahora no tengo tiempo de comentar nada, mañana os amplio la información pero los valores que considero pueden subir son:
ALCATEL-LUCENT
ALSTOM
AXA
EADS
ESSILOR
RENAULT

Axa es una de las compañías más grandes del mundo financiero.

Cuando Claude Bébéar se hizo cargo de Anciennes Mutuelles, una compañía de seguros regional francesa, nadie hubiera creido que un día sería una de las empresas líderes del sector. Bébéar hizo reputación adquiriendo empresas en dificultades y revertiendo su proceso. Como cuando adquirió Druot, una de la compañía de seguros más grandes de Francia, en 1982.

Para 1985 la compañía adopta un nombre más apto para el mundo globalizado, AXA, que no es una abreviatura sino un nombre fácilmente pronunciable en muchos idiomas.

En 1991, AXA realizó su primera gran incursión en el mercado norteamericano, con su  Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette trading group.

En 1996, AXA se hizo cargo de la Union des Assurances de Paris (UAP), en un negocio que catapultó a AXA hacia las grandes ligas de las aseguradoras.

Leer tambien: Aviva

90s long trackingshot with dialogue from start to finish as introduction for a new AXA-bank productwebsite.

Agency: Duval Guillaume Antwerp
Prod co: Caviar Content
Director: Tom Willems

Dapatkan ilustrasi Gratis sesuai data real Anda,KLIK DISINI !