Bilibala: new rule will surely affect Shoppers Drug Mart's earning, on the other hand, as Canadian aging, the health expenses volume should continue to grow.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0712523820100407?type=marketsNews
TORONTO, April 7 (Reuters) - Shoppers Drug Mart Corp (SC.TO) said on Wednesday it is reviewing government reforms to the way prescription drugs are priced in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, and how the changes will affect the company's bottom line.
Shoppers, Canada's biggest pharmacy chain, said it is taking a fresh look at its strategic priorities and initiatives, and is reviewing its forecasts for prescription sales growth in fiscal 2010.
The Ontario government, looking to keep health care costs in check, said on Wednesday it will impose lower generic prescription drug prices under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.
Shoppers Drug Mart said it is "strongly opposed" to the changes, adding it believes they will have a negative impact on pharmacy services and patient care in the province, "as it is inevitable that pharmacies will have to make reductions to their current service offerings".
The company said the reforms would require all pharmacies, including the more than 600 Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacies in Ontario, to review their operating, investing and professional practice models to ensure long-term sustainability.
Shoppers said it will report its quarterly results on April 28 and it expects to provide more information on its review at that time.
"These announced changes reinforce our view that in the long term, the successful players in retail pharmacy will be those with size, scale and an ability to leverage operating efficiencies," said Jurgen Schreiber, president and chief executive of Shoppers Drug Mart.
"Shoppers Drug Mart, with the largest integrated pharmacy network in the country and the leading market share, will be challenged in the short term to adjust to the changes announced today, but remains well positioned for the long term," he said. (Reporting by John McCrank; editing by Peter Galloway)
4.06.2010
Google's Business Reason for Leaving China
Bilibala: really good article about Google leaving China if not smart decision, at least it is not a bad idea. As what I mentioned before, reputation is extremely important.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303493904575167290011111402.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
By MATTHEW FORNEY AND ARTHUR KROEBER
Google's high-profile departure from China's search-engine market has burnished the company's reputation for ethics. The company has won plaudits from various quarters for sacrificing its business interests on the altar of free speech.
But is the decision really so altruistic? Few doubt Google's commitment to free speech, which is particularly important to co-CEO Sergey Brin, who was born in the Soviet Union. But when considering whether other companies should follow Google out of China, it's worth noting that Google's withdrawal from China's search market makes good business sense.
The reason is simple: Google's business model requires that its consumers trust that their information will be absolutely secure. So when Google says it will "do no evil" and will never compromise on its principles or its technologies, the world must believe it.
Recent events underline the sensitivity of data security. The same week that Google rerouted its China search traffic to Hong Kong servers, the Yahoo email accounts of several China-based foreign journalists were hacked. Yale University in the U.S. is reconsidering its decision to use Google's email service campus-wide after faculty members questioned whether data would be secure. And University of Toronto researchers this week announced their discovery of yet another cyber-espionage ring operating out of China.
In January, Google gave two reasons for reassessing its China operations. One was the company's dismay with the Chinese government's ceaseless efforts to limit free speech on the web. The other was a sophisticated hack attack launched from China in December that targeted Google's secure servers in the U.S.
View Full ImageFred Harper
The hackers, Google said, had penetrated far enough into the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists that they could read email subject lines. Significantly, the hack also "resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google." That property is believed to be a chunk of Google's highly confidential source code.
Google redirecting search users to its Hong Kong servers because of censorship is easy to understand. After much soul searching, Google did agree to censor its search results when it launched its Chinese search engine in 2006, and was later distressed to find that Beijing's commitment to censoring the web grew stronger over time, not weaker. But what did the hack have to do with exiting China? If the attack had come from New York City, would Google have closed down its service in Manhattan?
To find the answer, remember that the Google products we see today, such as the company's colorful but clean search page and its pinpointed maps, may soon comprise just a small part of Google's suite of products. Google's long-term plan is to compete not just with other Web publishers and search engines, but with technology companies like Microsoft and Apple.
In particular, Google wants to dominate the cloud—the suite of servers and applications that will store much of the information that businesses and individuals today retain on their own hard drives. Instead of using Word and Excel and Outlook, users may choose similar Google applications, such as Google Docs, that will store data online and make it accessible from any computer or wireless device. When used on wireless handsets, those applications may run on Google's open operating system, Android, which will of course make Google's products easy to use. In short, Google wants to be the guardian of your private information.
That's where China presents a problem. Google compromised its principles when it censored its Chinese search engine, which was damaging enough to its reputation. If Google had stayed in China and was seen as setting up research and development centers, training engineers, possibly even training the types of people who would someday hack out chunks of Google's code, then users could fairly wonder whether Google might compromise their data for a buck. As one former Google employee in China told us, "If what Google does in China makes its data seem unsafe, then Google's global strategy is gone."
So Google had much at stake in the world, but, it turns out, not much at stake in China. Google earned roughly $300 million a year in China, nearly all of it from advertising. Yet one-third of that sum came from Chinese companies using Google to place ads outside of China, and Chinese companies will presumably continue using this Google service. So Google stands to lose around $200 million. That's less than 1% of the company's global income—a rounding error.
Of course, Google forgoes more than just online advertising revenue. China's second-biggest telecommunications carrier, China Unicom, just dropped Google's search product from its newest smartphones. But such opportunity costs can be considered small compared to the downside risk of maintaining operations in China.
It's likely that Google's top executives, especially Mr. Brin, were already reconsidering their commitment to China when the hack came in December. The intrusion tipped the balance, and also provided a nice public-relations hook (Google has since said that the hackers had not targeted the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists).
The lessons to be learned from Google's exit are not necessarily transferable to other foreign companies operating in China. Many of these companies have also compromised long-stated principles. They may choose to follow Google and leave. But they should do so knowing that Google's principled stand did not imperil its future bottom line.
Mr. Forney is president of Fathom China, a corporate research firm. Mr. Kroeber is the Beijing-based managing director of economic consultancy GaveKal Dragonomics.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303493904575167290011111402.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
By MATTHEW FORNEY AND ARTHUR KROEBER
Google's high-profile departure from China's search-engine market has burnished the company's reputation for ethics. The company has won plaudits from various quarters for sacrificing its business interests on the altar of free speech.
But is the decision really so altruistic? Few doubt Google's commitment to free speech, which is particularly important to co-CEO Sergey Brin, who was born in the Soviet Union. But when considering whether other companies should follow Google out of China, it's worth noting that Google's withdrawal from China's search market makes good business sense.
The reason is simple: Google's business model requires that its consumers trust that their information will be absolutely secure. So when Google says it will "do no evil" and will never compromise on its principles or its technologies, the world must believe it.
Recent events underline the sensitivity of data security. The same week that Google rerouted its China search traffic to Hong Kong servers, the Yahoo email accounts of several China-based foreign journalists were hacked. Yale University in the U.S. is reconsidering its decision to use Google's email service campus-wide after faculty members questioned whether data would be secure. And University of Toronto researchers this week announced their discovery of yet another cyber-espionage ring operating out of China.
In January, Google gave two reasons for reassessing its China operations. One was the company's dismay with the Chinese government's ceaseless efforts to limit free speech on the web. The other was a sophisticated hack attack launched from China in December that targeted Google's secure servers in the U.S.
View Full ImageFred Harper
The hackers, Google said, had penetrated far enough into the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists that they could read email subject lines. Significantly, the hack also "resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google." That property is believed to be a chunk of Google's highly confidential source code.
Google redirecting search users to its Hong Kong servers because of censorship is easy to understand. After much soul searching, Google did agree to censor its search results when it launched its Chinese search engine in 2006, and was later distressed to find that Beijing's commitment to censoring the web grew stronger over time, not weaker. But what did the hack have to do with exiting China? If the attack had come from New York City, would Google have closed down its service in Manhattan?
To find the answer, remember that the Google products we see today, such as the company's colorful but clean search page and its pinpointed maps, may soon comprise just a small part of Google's suite of products. Google's long-term plan is to compete not just with other Web publishers and search engines, but with technology companies like Microsoft and Apple.
In particular, Google wants to dominate the cloud—the suite of servers and applications that will store much of the information that businesses and individuals today retain on their own hard drives. Instead of using Word and Excel and Outlook, users may choose similar Google applications, such as Google Docs, that will store data online and make it accessible from any computer or wireless device. When used on wireless handsets, those applications may run on Google's open operating system, Android, which will of course make Google's products easy to use. In short, Google wants to be the guardian of your private information.
That's where China presents a problem. Google compromised its principles when it censored its Chinese search engine, which was damaging enough to its reputation. If Google had stayed in China and was seen as setting up research and development centers, training engineers, possibly even training the types of people who would someday hack out chunks of Google's code, then users could fairly wonder whether Google might compromise their data for a buck. As one former Google employee in China told us, "If what Google does in China makes its data seem unsafe, then Google's global strategy is gone."
So Google had much at stake in the world, but, it turns out, not much at stake in China. Google earned roughly $300 million a year in China, nearly all of it from advertising. Yet one-third of that sum came from Chinese companies using Google to place ads outside of China, and Chinese companies will presumably continue using this Google service. So Google stands to lose around $200 million. That's less than 1% of the company's global income—a rounding error.
Of course, Google forgoes more than just online advertising revenue. China's second-biggest telecommunications carrier, China Unicom, just dropped Google's search product from its newest smartphones. But such opportunity costs can be considered small compared to the downside risk of maintaining operations in China.
It's likely that Google's top executives, especially Mr. Brin, were already reconsidering their commitment to China when the hack came in December. The intrusion tipped the balance, and also provided a nice public-relations hook (Google has since said that the hackers had not targeted the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists).
The lessons to be learned from Google's exit are not necessarily transferable to other foreign companies operating in China. Many of these companies have also compromised long-stated principles. They may choose to follow Google and leave. But they should do so knowing that Google's principled stand did not imperil its future bottom line.
Mr. Forney is president of Fathom China, a corporate research firm. Mr. Kroeber is the Beijing-based managing director of economic consultancy GaveKal Dragonomics.
FX rate US $$ continue to drop?
Question:
hi Billy, why US$ drops crazily? is it good to exchange? thanks.
Answer:
I don’t think the US$ will drop further, may be 1.02 to 1 Can $ and I think 1 to 1 is a pretty good equilibrium point in long run until interest rate trend start rising (not rise, but a rising trend to form, it will take at least 1 to 1.5 year from today.) Then Can$ may rise a bit further to $1.1.
You should convert at $0.92 when I told u ½ years ago, Now is kind of late. Always focus on better investment, not FX rate.
hi Billy, why US$ drops crazily? is it good to exchange? thanks.
Answer:
I don’t think the US$ will drop further, may be 1.02 to 1 Can $ and I think 1 to 1 is a pretty good equilibrium point in long run until interest rate trend start rising (not rise, but a rising trend to form, it will take at least 1 to 1.5 year from today.) Then Can$ may rise a bit further to $1.1.
You should convert at $0.92 when I told u ½ years ago, Now is kind of late. Always focus on better investment, not FX rate.
Question on RIM
Billy, how come RIM dropped from 78 to 67.90? is it good to buy? thanks
RIM dropped cuz actual below expectation, even though they said they will have a strong outlook. (I haven’t reviewed its quarter end press release, and I won’t, cuz I don’t need to know)
To me, it is good opportunity to buy if you believe on the following:
RIM dropped cuz actual below expectation, even though they said they will have a strong outlook. (I haven’t reviewed its quarter end press release, and I won’t, cuz I don’t need to know)
To me, it is good opportunity to buy if you believe on the following:
- Smart phone market will grow bigger from today’s 12% market share to 20-25% at least in 5 years time and finally dominate 90% in 10-15 years
- RIM will continue remain its leadership position for commercial users
Please be aware of the following:
- I am 100% sure the current individual users’ market belongs to Nokia and future belongs to Apple & Google, not RIM
- Blackberry is RIM’s only product, its app store is pretty small. Its portfolio is not diversified enough
Fair value may rise to CA$100 (based on the estimation growth rate), again you need to hold it for 5-6 years.
To me, Manulife Financial will generate higher return with lower risk.
China CCB may raise $11 bln via share sales
Bilibala: I don't think China Construction Bank need cash, if the cash is merely try to fulfil the high capital requirement by the regulator, I hope it will have a better use of it. Or else, it is not a great decision for the existing shareholders.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTOE63504620100406
SHANGHAI, April 6 (Reuters) - China Construction Bank (CCB) (0939.HK) (601939.SS), the country's second-biggest lender, plans to raise about 75 billion yuan ($11 billion) through share sales this year to replenish its capital, Bloomberg News reported on its website, citing unidentified sources.
CCB may raise as much as 45 billion yuan in a private placement in Shanghai and 30 billion yuan in a rights offer in Hong Kong, the report said.
The fundraising plan has won approval from the State Council, or China's cabinet, and is subject to revision according to market conditions, the article said.
Zhang Jinguo, deputy general manager of CCB's board of directors office, declined to comment.
CCB, in which Bank of America (BAC.N) owns an 11 percent stake, met on March 10 to discuss potential fundraising plans, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. [nTOE62P06S]
CCB Chairman Guo Shuqing said last week the bank was examining ways of raising capital but had no immediate plans to do so. [nTOE62S08A]
Chinese banks, including Bank of China (3988.HK) (601988.SS) and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (1398.HK) (601398.SS), are rushing to raise cash after last year's government-directed lending binge weakened their balance sheets.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTOE63504620100406
SHANGHAI, April 6 (Reuters) - China Construction Bank (CCB) (0939.HK) (601939.SS), the country's second-biggest lender, plans to raise about 75 billion yuan ($11 billion) through share sales this year to replenish its capital, Bloomberg News reported on its website, citing unidentified sources.
CCB may raise as much as 45 billion yuan in a private placement in Shanghai and 30 billion yuan in a rights offer in Hong Kong, the report said.
The fundraising plan has won approval from the State Council, or China's cabinet, and is subject to revision according to market conditions, the article said.
Zhang Jinguo, deputy general manager of CCB's board of directors office, declined to comment.
CCB, in which Bank of America (BAC.N) owns an 11 percent stake, met on March 10 to discuss potential fundraising plans, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. [nTOE62P06S]
CCB Chairman Guo Shuqing said last week the bank was examining ways of raising capital but had no immediate plans to do so. [nTOE62S08A]
Chinese banks, including Bank of China (3988.HK) (601988.SS) and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (1398.HK) (601398.SS), are rushing to raise cash after last year's government-directed lending binge weakened their balance sheets.
Manulife Buys JV in China
Bilibala: insurance company face aging problem, on the other hand, aging will give opportunity for asset management, that's why Manulife keep acquire aum business in the world.
http://www.benzinga.com/208438/manulife-buys-jv-in-china-analyst-blog
Posted on 04/06/10 at 9:45am by Zacks
Last week, Manulife Financial Corporation (MFC) completed the deal to buy Fortis Bank SA/NV's 49% ownership in ABN AMRO TEDA Fund Management Co. Ltd. The remaining 51% ownership is owned by Northern International Trust, part of Tianjin TEDA Investment Holding Co. Ltd. The deal pertains to MFC Global Investment Management, the asset management division of Manulife Financial.
The new joint venture has been renamed Manulife TEDA Fund Management Company Ltd. It will continue to provide traditional retail and institutional asset management services for clients across the Chinese market. As of Dec 31, 2009, Manulife TEDA's assets under management were RMB 30 billion (US$4.4 billion). This represents a 45% increase from the prior year level. The transaction has received the necessary regulatory approvals.
The agreement to purchase the fund management joint venture in China was announced last November. At that time, Manulife said that the purchase was for a cash consideration of €105 million (US$156 million). The acquisition is expected to be accretive to Manulife Financial’s earnings in the first year and would have a negligible impact on capital levels.
The asset management and insurance market in China is attractive to investors for its growth potential. Manulife Financial is also growing its insurance business in China through Manulife-Sinochem.
Manulife-Sinochem is a joint venture company between Manulife (International) Limited (51%) and China Foreign Economic and Trade Trust & Investment Company, a member of the Sinochem group (49%).
Manulife-Sinochem, which began operations in Nov 1996, was the first Chinese-foreign joint-venture life insurance company established in the country. The company currently serves over 500,000 customers in 41 cities across China through approximately 11,000 professionally trained staff and agents.
Manulife's fourth-quarter earnings of 48 cents per share were below the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 51 cents. The miss was driven by mark-to-market adjustments in real estate investments, model refinements to actuarial liabilities and tax adjustments.
However, the company benefited from equity market appreciation and increases in corporate bond yields. In addition, we think that such an expansion drive will considerably add to Manulife's scale and strengthen its position globally in the foreseeable future.
Shares of Manulife Financial increased 36 cents or 1.83% to $20.05 during the regular session on the New York Stock Exchange last Thursday.
http://www.benzinga.com/208438/manulife-buys-jv-in-china-analyst-blog
Posted on 04/06/10 at 9:45am by Zacks
Last week, Manulife Financial Corporation (MFC) completed the deal to buy Fortis Bank SA/NV's 49% ownership in ABN AMRO TEDA Fund Management Co. Ltd. The remaining 51% ownership is owned by Northern International Trust, part of Tianjin TEDA Investment Holding Co. Ltd. The deal pertains to MFC Global Investment Management, the asset management division of Manulife Financial.
The new joint venture has been renamed Manulife TEDA Fund Management Company Ltd. It will continue to provide traditional retail and institutional asset management services for clients across the Chinese market. As of Dec 31, 2009, Manulife TEDA's assets under management were RMB 30 billion (US$4.4 billion). This represents a 45% increase from the prior year level. The transaction has received the necessary regulatory approvals.
The agreement to purchase the fund management joint venture in China was announced last November. At that time, Manulife said that the purchase was for a cash consideration of €105 million (US$156 million). The acquisition is expected to be accretive to Manulife Financial’s earnings in the first year and would have a negligible impact on capital levels.
The asset management and insurance market in China is attractive to investors for its growth potential. Manulife Financial is also growing its insurance business in China through Manulife-Sinochem.
Manulife-Sinochem is a joint venture company between Manulife (International) Limited (51%) and China Foreign Economic and Trade Trust & Investment Company, a member of the Sinochem group (49%).
Manulife-Sinochem, which began operations in Nov 1996, was the first Chinese-foreign joint-venture life insurance company established in the country. The company currently serves over 500,000 customers in 41 cities across China through approximately 11,000 professionally trained staff and agents.
Manulife's fourth-quarter earnings of 48 cents per share were below the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 51 cents. The miss was driven by mark-to-market adjustments in real estate investments, model refinements to actuarial liabilities and tax adjustments.
However, the company benefited from equity market appreciation and increases in corporate bond yields. In addition, we think that such an expansion drive will considerably add to Manulife's scale and strengthen its position globally in the foreseeable future.
Shares of Manulife Financial increased 36 cents or 1.83% to $20.05 during the regular session on the New York Stock Exchange last Thursday.
4.05.2010
AEGON restructure
Bilibala: pray that my company will not put my division on sales la.
Posted on 04/05/10 at 1:30pm by Zacks
Keeping pace with its ongoing restructuring program that began in 2009, Aegon NV (AEG) announced the sale of its funeral insurance business in Netherlands. Although the sale took place on Feb 1, 2010, it was announced on Friday. The company’s insurance unit has been disposed off to Egeria, a Dutch investment firm for €212 million.
The decision of vending off the funeral insurance business was in line with the Aegon’s strategy of reorganizing its product portfolio and getting rid of the problematic units. In February 2009, Aegon disposed off its institutional spread-based business in the U.S.
The runoff will significantly reduce the company’s exposure to credit risk and help lessen overall sensitivity to fluctuations in financial markets. We believe the sale is expected to have a positive effect on Aegon’s excess capital position and is projected to result in a modest book gain in the first half of 2010.
As such, the company has also been laying off a substantial number of its employees in order to rightsize its operations in the Netherlands. As a result, Aegon’s total workforce declined 7% in 2009 to just over 25,000 employees, mainly due to restructuring in the U.S. and the U.K., as well as the sale of real estate brokerage activities in the Netherlands and life insurance operations in Taiwan.
Earnings Highlights
On Mar 29, Aegon reported the filing of its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year 2009 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Accordingly, Aegon reported fourth quarter net income of €393 million, which came in substantially ahead of the net loss of €1.18 billion recorded in the year-ago quarter. The significant swing was primarily the result of improved earnings, realized gains on investments and lower impairments.
During 2009, the company realized cost reductions of €250 million, significantly ahead of the target of €150 million. Excluding the impact of restructuring charges, increased employee benefit expenses in the U.S. and currency movements, operating costs decreased in 2009 by 5% from 2008.
For full year 2009, Aegon’s underlying earnings before tax amounted to €1.2 billion, compared to €1.6 billion in 2008. New life sales declined to €2.0 billion from €2.6 billion in 2008, primarily due to weak market activity based on volatile market conditions.
However, gross deposits increased to €23.6 billion against €22.4 billion in 2008, while revenue generating investments increased to €361 billion against €332 billion in 2008. Capital position remained modestly strong.
Aegon continues to move ahead with its strategic priorities of reallocating capital towards business with higher growth and return prospects, to improve growth and returns from existing businesses and to reduce financial market risk.
Posted on 04/05/10 at 1:30pm by Zacks
Keeping pace with its ongoing restructuring program that began in 2009, Aegon NV (AEG) announced the sale of its funeral insurance business in Netherlands. Although the sale took place on Feb 1, 2010, it was announced on Friday. The company’s insurance unit has been disposed off to Egeria, a Dutch investment firm for €212 million.
The decision of vending off the funeral insurance business was in line with the Aegon’s strategy of reorganizing its product portfolio and getting rid of the problematic units. In February 2009, Aegon disposed off its institutional spread-based business in the U.S.
The runoff will significantly reduce the company’s exposure to credit risk and help lessen overall sensitivity to fluctuations in financial markets. We believe the sale is expected to have a positive effect on Aegon’s excess capital position and is projected to result in a modest book gain in the first half of 2010.
As such, the company has also been laying off a substantial number of its employees in order to rightsize its operations in the Netherlands. As a result, Aegon’s total workforce declined 7% in 2009 to just over 25,000 employees, mainly due to restructuring in the U.S. and the U.K., as well as the sale of real estate brokerage activities in the Netherlands and life insurance operations in Taiwan.
Earnings Highlights
On Mar 29, Aegon reported the filing of its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year 2009 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Accordingly, Aegon reported fourth quarter net income of €393 million, which came in substantially ahead of the net loss of €1.18 billion recorded in the year-ago quarter. The significant swing was primarily the result of improved earnings, realized gains on investments and lower impairments.
During 2009, the company realized cost reductions of €250 million, significantly ahead of the target of €150 million. Excluding the impact of restructuring charges, increased employee benefit expenses in the U.S. and currency movements, operating costs decreased in 2009 by 5% from 2008.
For full year 2009, Aegon’s underlying earnings before tax amounted to €1.2 billion, compared to €1.6 billion in 2008. New life sales declined to €2.0 billion from €2.6 billion in 2008, primarily due to weak market activity based on volatile market conditions.
However, gross deposits increased to €23.6 billion against €22.4 billion in 2008, while revenue generating investments increased to €361 billion against €332 billion in 2008. Capital position remained modestly strong.
Aegon continues to move ahead with its strategic priorities of reallocating capital towards business with higher growth and return prospects, to improve growth and returns from existing businesses and to reduce financial market risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)