《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 Broker and brokerage
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 Globalization
GlobalizationGlobalization is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it refers almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade".Between 1910 and 1950, a series of political and economic upheavals dramatically reduced the volume and importance of international trade flows. In the post-World War II environment, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuilding programs, international trade dramatically expanded. With the 1970s, the effects of this trade became increasingly visible, both in terms of the benefits and the disruptive effects.Meanings of Globalization"Globalization" can mean:•The formation of a global village— closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization,•Economic globalization —"free trade" and increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of National Sovereignty in the economic sphere.•The negative effects of for-profit multinational corporations— the use of substantial and sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labor and services of unequally-developed regions against each other.•The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations.It shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is used interchangeably, although some prefer to use globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation-state or national boundaries.Globalism, if the concept is reduced to its economic aspects, can be said to contrast with economic nationalism and protectionism. It is related to laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism.History of globalizationSince the word has both technical and political meanings, different groups will have differing histories of "globalization". In general use within the field of economics and political economy, is, however, a history of increasing trade between nations based on stable institutions that allow individuals and firms in different nations to exchange goods with minimal friction.The term "liberalization" came to mean the combination of laissez-faire economic theory with the removal of barriers to the movement of goods. This led to the increasing specialization of nations in exports, and the pressure to end protective tariffs and other barriers to trade. The period of the gold standard and liberalization of the 19th century is often called "The First Era of Globalization". Based on the Pax Britannica and the exchange of goods in currencies pegged to specie, this era grew along with industrialization. The theoretical basis was Ricardo's work on Comparative advantage and Say's Law of General equilibrium. In essence, it was argued that nations would trade effectively, and that any temporary disruptions in supply or demand would correct themselves automatically. The institution of the gold standard came in steps in major industrialized nations between approximately 1850 and 1880, though exactly when various nations were truly on the gold standard is a matter of a great deal of contentious debate.The "First Era of Globalization" is said to have broken down in stages beginning with the first World War, and then collapsing with the crisis of the gold standard in the late 1920's and early 1930's.Globalization in the era since World War II has been driven by Trade Negotiation Rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT, which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on "free trade". The Uruguay round led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization or WTO, to mediate trade disputes. Other bilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.Signs of globalizationGlobalization has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. The actual existence of some of these trends are debated.•Increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy•Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment•Greater transborder data flow, using such technologies such as the Internet, communication satellites and telephones•Greater international cultural exchange, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies.•Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization. Terrorists now have attacked places all over the world.•Spreading of multiculturalism and better individual access to cultural diversity, with on the other hand, some reduction in diversity through assimilation, hybridization, Westernization, Americanization or Sinosization of cultures.•Erosion of national sovereignty and national borders through international agreements leading to organizations like the WTO and OPEC•Greater international travel and tourism•Greater immigration, including illegal immigration•Development of global telecommunications infrastructure•Development of a global financial systems•Increase in the share of the world economy controlled by multinational corporations•Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, WIPO, IMF that deal with international transactions•Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright lawsBarriers to international trade have been considerably lowered since World War II through international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the WTO, for which GATT is the foundation, have included:•Promotion of free tradeo Of goods: reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffso Of capital: reduction or elimination of capital controlso Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses •Intellectual Property Restrictionso Harmonization of intellectual property laws across nations (generally speaking, with more restrictions)o Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the US)Anti-globalizationMain article: "Anti-globalization".Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the movement's aim is to globalize justice. Indeed, "the global justice movement" is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondisme in French.There is a wide variety of different kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account.Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.Many "anti-globalization" activists see globalization as the promotion of a corporatist agenda, which is intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claimthat increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities increasingly shape the political policy of nation-states.Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind the Iraq war and that it has forced savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations.Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises.The main opposition is to unfettered globalization (neoliberal; laissez-faire capitalism), guided by governments and quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are not held responsible to the populations that they govern and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism".The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, libertarian socialists and others. Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.Protests by the global justice movement have now forced high-level international meetings away from the major cities where they used to be held, and off into remote locations where protest is impractical.Pro-globalization (globalism)Supporters of democratic globalization can be labelled pro-globalists. They consider that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be completed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of World citizens. The difference with other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orientate this will, which should be left to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process.Supporters of free trade point out that economic theories such as comparative advantage suggests that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all those involved in the trade benefitting. In general, they claim that this leads to lower prices, more employment and better allocation of resources.Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of democracy and capitalism.Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization. One effect being that the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 (adjusted for inflation) per day have halved in only twenty years [1] (). Life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world [2] (). Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing [3] ().Many pro-capitalists are also critical of the World Bank and the IMF, arguing that they are corrupt bureaucracies controlled and financed by states, not corporations. Many loans have been given to dictators who never did any reforms, instead leaving the common people to pay the debts later. They thus see too little capitalism, not too much. They also note that some of the resistance to globalization come from special interest groups with conflicting interests like Western world unions.Globalization in questionThere is much academic discussion about whether globalization is a real phenomenon or only a myth. Although the term is widespread, many authors argue that the characteristics of the phenomenon have already been seen at other moments in history. Also, many note that those features that make people believe we are in the process of globalization, including the increase in international trade and the greater role of multinational corporations, are not as deeply established as they may appear. Thus, many authors prefer the use of the term internationalization rather than globalization. To put it simply, the role of the state and the importance of nations are greater in internationalization, while globalization in its complete form eliminates nation states. So, these authors see that the frontiers of countries, in a broad sense, are far from being dissolved, and therefore this radical globalization process is not yet happening, and probably won't happen, considering that in world history, internationalization never turned into globalization —(the European Union and NAFTA are yet to prove their case.)However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and as such the movement previously known as the anti-globalisation movement has transmogrified into a movement of movements for globalisation from below; seeking, through experimentation, forms of social organisation that transcend the nation state and representative democracy. So, whereas the original arguments of anti-global critique can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies.。
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 the Glass-Stegall Act
The Glass-Stegall ActTwo separate laws are known as the Glass-Steagall Act. The first, enacted February 271932, by President Herbert Hoover, effectively took the United States off the gold standard and greatly increased the ability of the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply. The second, also known as the "Banking Act of 1933", enacted June 161933, by President Franklin Roosevelt, attempted to make banking safer and less prone to speculation. Both acts were reactions of the government to cope with the economic problems which followed the crash of 1929.The Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 included the following provisions:•Permitted Federal Reserve banks to use government securities as collateral for the issue of Federal Reserve notes•Relaxed the collateral security required by member banks at the discount window•Allowed the government to loan out the nation's gold reservesThe Banking Act of 1933 included the following provisions:•Separated the activities of banks and securities firms (prohibited commercial banks from owning brokerages)•Introduced FDIC insurance•Regulation Q which prohibited paying interest on commercial demand deposits and capped the interest rate on savings depositsOf all the important changes to the banking laws in these acts, perhaps the most significant was the first one mentioned above. Before the first Glass-Steagall Act was passed, Federal Reserve notes (i.e., U.S. dollars) could only be issued by the government if they were backed with gold. This restricted the amount of dollars the government could issue. By allowing collateralization of dollars on government debt, the treasury gained the authority to create dollars in any amount it desired.Note that the Banking Act of 1933 should not be confused with the "Emergency Banking Act" of March 9, 1933, which officially took the United States off the gold standard, barred Americans from possessing gold and gave the president wide latitude to dictate monetary rules and policy.Both bills were sponsored by Democratic Senator Carter Glass of Virginia, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and Democratic Congressman Henry B. Steagall of Alabama, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.On November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. One impact of this repeal is that certain advisory activities of the banks are now regulated by the Investment Advisor Act of 1940.。
管理学专业英语教程(第二版)-Unit 11 Big Data_The Managment Revolution
IBM added veracity as a fourth dimension, which represents the unreliability and uncertainty latent in data sources.
An integrated view of Big Data
FudaLnOGO
❖ Better Pricing Harnessing big data collected from customer interactions allows firms to price appropriately and reap the rewards.
❖ Cost Reduction Big data analytics leads to better demand forecasts, more efficient routing with visualization and real-time tracking during shipments, and highly optimized distribution network management.
Introduction
We define ‘Big Data’ as a capability that allows companies to extract value from large volumes of data, Like any capability, it requires investment in technologies, processes and
Lesson 11 International Financial Management 旅游管理专业英语PPT课件
2.4 Expanded Opportunity Set
Deploy: v. To distribute (persons or
▪ Firms can gainfofrrcoemss)tsraygtsertegemicaaalttliyec.arllyeocr onomies of scale
when their tangible and intangible assets are deployed on a global basis.
▪ Individual investors can also benefit greatly if
they invest internationally rather than domestically.
3.1 Financial instruments and tools
▪ It is important for today’s financial managers to
These barriers include
discriminatory adj.
▪ Legal restrictionsMarked by or
▪
Excessive
showing prejudice;
transactbiioasneda. nd transportation
costs
▪ Discriminatory taxation
4.1 Deregulations
▪ Tokyo Stock Exchange ▪ London Stock Exchange
4.2 Financial Instruments
▪ Innovative instruments: ✓Currency futures and options ✓Multicurrency bonds ✓International mutual funds ✓Country funds ✓Foreign stock index futures and options.
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson09 Leverage
Leverage is related to torque; leverage is a factor by which lever multiplies a force. The useful work done is the energy applied, which is force times distance. Therefore a small force applied over a long distance is the same amount of work as a large force applied over a small distance. The trick is converting the one into the other.The simplest device for creating leverage is the lever. A lever is a stick which rests on a fulcrum () near one end. When you push the long end of the stick down a long ways, the short end moves a small distance up with great force. With this device a man can easily lift several times his own weight.Other common devices that achieve leverage include the wrench, various pulley arrangements, a jack, and hydraulic brakes.For instance, in finance people think of money as "force." Given a relatively small initial amount of force (money), you can use that as collateral for a much larger loan, which gives you a larger amount of money (force) to throw around. Therefore in finance it is common to call debt "leverage."In accounting and finance, the amount of long-term debt that a company has in relation to its equity. The higher the ratio, the greater is the leverage. Leverage is generally measured by a variation of the debt-to-equity ratio, which is calculated as follows: Long-term liabilities/Total stockholders’ equity. A company’s optimal leverage depends on the stability of its earnings. A company with consistently high earnings can be more leveraged than a company with variable earnings, because it will consistently be more likely to make the required interest and principal payments.BusinessA profitable business with good credit and cash flow may be able to borrow at rates well below the rate at which they can earn money in their core business or other projects by utilizing the borrowed capital. Several methods are used to look at what rate of return a corporation can earn money. See return on assets and return on equity. Any time a business can earn more money than what they can borrow at, the corporation will be more profitable over the period of time in which they can do so.FinanceIn finance leverage takes the form of borrowing money and reinvesting it with the hope to earn a greater rate of return than the cost of interest. Leverage allows greater potential return to the investor than otherwise would have been available. The potential for loss is greater because if the investment becomes worthless, not only is that money lost, but the loan still needs to be repaid. A margin account is a common way of utilizing the concept of leverage in investing.Another form of creating leverage using financial instruments is through the use of options. The purchase of a call option on a security gives the buyer the right to purchase the underlying security at a given price in the future. If the price of the underlying security rises, the value of the call option will rise at a rate much greater than the value of the underlying security. However if the rate of the call option falls or does not rise, the call option may be worthless, involving a much greater loss than if the same money had been invested in the underlying instrument.Leverage and riskUtilizing leverage amplifies the potential gain from an investment or project, but also increases the potential loss. This increased risk may be perfectly acceptable or even necessary to reach the goals of the entity or person making the investment. In fact, precisely managing risk utilizing strategies including leverage and securities purchases, is the subject of a discipline known as financial engineering"Slippage"In a rising market, the compounding associated with a leveraged portfolio leads to greater gains; in a declining market, the compounding of a leveraged portfolio may lead to larger losses. However, in a flat market with volatility, the compounding of a leveraged portfolio will cause the portfolio to under perform an identical unleveraged portfolio. Because the percentage increase in a leveraged portfolio is higher by the same ratio as the decrease is higher.ExampleA 100 index going to 110 is a 10% increase. A 110 index going to 100 is a % decrease. In a 200% leveraged index it's a 20% increase, to 120, and a 18.17% (9.09*2) decrease to 98.2.If a target index gains 10% on one day before returning to the original level the next day, a 2.0 beta portfolio will lose 1.8% of its value, and a 1.25 beta portfolio will lose 0.3% of its value.Real worldDuring the 1970s the stock market were "flat". On 31-Dec-79 the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 838.74, on 19-Nov-69 it closed at 839.96 ([1] (/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=00&b=15&c=1969&d= 00&e=15&f=1980&g=d)). An unleveraged portfolio of DJIA would have ended with the same price as it began the decade (and would have lost value through inflation). A 200% leveraged portfolio holding the DJIA during that period would have lost all of its value.。
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 Option
OptionIt is a contract giving the holder the right but not the obligation to trade in a commodity, a share, or a currency on some future date at a pre-agreed price. A “put” option gives the holder the right to sell at a pre-agreed price. This can be used to reduce risk by somebody who has to hold the actual asset and is worried that its price may fall; it can equally be use to speculate on a price fall. A “call” option gives the holder the right to buy at a pre-agreed price. This can be used to reduce risk by people who expect to need the asset in the future and are worried that its price may rise before they buy; it can equally be used to speculate on a price rise. An options market is a market in which options are traded; these exist for many widely traded goods, shares, and currencies. Share options give a right to buy company shares at a future date at a pre-agreed price; they are used by companies as incentives for their executives. An option is contrasted with a futures contract, which carries the obligation as well as the right to trade.In finance, an option is a contract whereby the contract buyer has a right to exercise a feature of the contract (the option) on or before a future date (the exercise date). The 'writer' (seller) has the obligation to honour the specified feature of the contract. Since the option gives the buyer a right and the seller an obligation, the buyer has received something of value. The amount the buyer pays the seller for the option is called the option premium.Most often the term "options" refers to a derivative security, an option which gives the holder of the option the right to purchase or sell a security within a predefined time span in the future, for a predetermined amount. (Specific features of options on securities differ by the type of the underlying instrument involved.) However real options are another common type. A real option may be something as simple as the opportunity to buy or sell a house at a given price at some period in the future. The writer has the obligation to sell the house to the option buyer for the price agreed in the option while the option buyer does not have to purchase the house at all, so again the buyer has received something of value. Real options are an increasingly influential tool in corporate finance.The option contractFor the option purchaser (also called the holder or taker), the option:•offers the right (but imposes no obligation),•to buy (call option) or sell (put option)• a specific quantity (e.g. 100)•of a given financial underlying (e.g. shares)•at an agreed price(exercise or strike price), or calculable value (based on a reference rate)•either before maturity date(American option) or at a fixed maturity date(European option)•for a premium (option price).The counterparty (option writer / seller) has an obligation to fulfill the contract if the option holder exercises the option. In return, the option seller receives the option price or premium. Yeah.Option frameworks•The buyer assumes a long position, and the writer a corresponding short position. (Thus the writer of a call option, is "short a call" and has the obligation to sell to the holder, who is "long of a call option" and who has the right to buy. The writer of a put option is "on the short side of the position", and has the obligation to buy from the taker of the put option, who is "long a put".)•The option style will affect the terms and valuation. Generally the contract will either be American style- which allows exercise before the maturity date - or European style- where exercise is on a fixed maturity date. European contracts are easier to value and therefore to price. The contract can also be on an exotic option.•Buyers and sellers of options do not (usually) interact directly; the options exchange acts as intermediary and quotes the market price of the option. The seller guarantees the exchange that he can fulfill his obligation if the buyer chooses to execute.•The risk for the option holder is limited: he cannot lose more than the premium paid as he can "abandon the option". His potential gain is theoretically unlimited; see strike price.•The maximum loss for the writer of a put option is equal to the strike price. In general, the risk for the writer of a call option is unlimited. However, an option writer who owns the underlying instrument has created a covered position; he can always meet his obligations by using the actual underlying. Where the seller does not own the underlying on which he has written the option, he is called a "naked writer", and has created a "naked position".•Options can be in-the-money, at-the-money or out-of-the-money. The "in-the-money"option has a positive intrinsic value, options in "at-the-money" or "out-of-the-money"have an intrinsic value of zero. Additional to the intrinsic value an option has a time value, which decreases, the closer the option is to its expiry date (also see option time value).Option pricing modelsHistorically the pricing of options was entirely ad hoc. Traders with good intuition about how other traders would price options made money and those without it lost money. Then in 1973 Fischer Black and Myron Scholes published a paper proposing what became known as the Black-Scholes pricing model, and for which Scholes received the 1997 Nobel Prize(Black had died, and was therefore not eligible). The model gave a theoretical value for simple put and call options, given assumptions about the behavior of stock prices. The availability of a good estimate of an option's theoretical price contributed to the explosion of trading in options. Researchers have subsequently generalized Black-Scholes to the Black model, and have developed other methods of option valuation, including Monte Carlo methods and Binomial options models.Option usesOne can combine options and other derivatives in a process known as financial engineering to control the risk in a given transaction. The risk taken on can be anywhere from zero to infinite, depending on the combination of derivative features used.Note, by using options, one party transfers (buys or sells) risk to or from another. When using options for insurance, the option holder reduces the risk he bears by paying the option seller a premium to assume it.Because one can use options to assume risk, one can purchase options to create leverage. The payoff to purchasing an option can be much greater than by purchasing the underlying instrument directly. For example buying an at-the-money call option for 2 monetary units per share for a total of 200 units on a security priced at 20 units, will lead to a 100% return on premium if the option is exercised when the underlying security's price has risen by 2 units, whereas buying the security directly for 20 units per share, would have led to a 10% return. The greater leverage comes at the cost of greater risk of losing 100% of the option premium if the underlying security does not rise in price.Other instruments to manage risk or to assume it include:•Futures•Forwards•Swaps。
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson10 Product Mix
Product MixThe combination of various products that a given company offers to the market. Product mixes differ in the number of product lines they contain. If a mix includes a large number of product lines (coffee, desserts, cereals, and so forth), it is called wide or broad. If it contains only a few product lines, it is considered narrow or limited. The width of the product mix is also known as the variety, and the depth of the mix is called the assortment.Product Mix refers to the range of products sold by a firm. For example, a supermarket sells food, but it may also sell clothes, electrical equipment, beauty products, and stationery; an electric appliance manufacturer may sell washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, televisions, and videos. A firm may expand its product mix by offering different products for sale; for example, a clothes shop may add underwear to its range. It may extend existing ranges; for example, a car manufacturer may bring out a special edition of an existing car model. It may change existing products; for example, a laundry detergent manufacturer may add more blue flakes to an existing brand and declare it to be new and improved, or a food company may repackage a product.Marketing Mix, factors that help a company or firm sell its products. Four elements are normally distinguished: getting the right product to the market; selling the product at the right price; ensuring that the promotion is right—that is, advertising and marketing for the product; and ensuring that the product is distributed to the most convenient place for customers to buy it.。
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 Privatization
PrivatizationPrivatization (sometimes privatisation, denationalization, or, especially in India, disinvestment) is the process of transferring property, from public ownership to private ownership and/or transferring the management of a service or activity from the government to the private sector. The opposite process is nationalization or municipalization.OverviewPrivatization is frequently associated with industrial or service-oriented enterprises, such as mining, manufacturing or power generation, but it can also apply to any asset, such as land, roads, or even rights to water. In recent years, government services such as health, sanitation, and education have been particularly targeted for privatization in many countries.In theory, privatization helps establish a "free market", as well as fostering capitalist competition, which its supporters argue will give the public greater choice at a competitive price. Conversely, socialists view privatization negatively, arguing that entrusting private businesses with control of essential services reduces the public's control over them and leads to excessive cost cutting in order to achieve profit and a resulting poor quality service.In general, nationalization was common during the immediate post-World War 2period, but privatization became a more dominant economic trend (especially within the United States and the United Kingdom) during the 1980s and '90s. This trend of privatization has often been characterized as part of a "global wave" of neoliberal policies, and some observers argue that this was greatly influenced by the policies of Reagan and Thatcher. The term "privatization" was coined in 1948 and is thought to have been popularized by The Economist during the '80s.Arguments for and againstSee also: arguments for and against public ownership and the welfare stateForAdvocates of privatization argue that governments run businesses poorly for the following reasons:•Performance. The government may only be interested in improving a company in cases when the performance of the company becomes politically sensitive.•Improvements. Conversely, the government may put off improvements due to political sensitivity — even in cases of companies that are run well.•Corruption. The company may become prone to corruption; company employees may be selected for political reasons rather than business ones.•Goals. The government may seek to run a company for social goals rather than business ones (this is conversely seen as a negative effect by critics of privatization).•Capital. It is claimed by supporters of privatization, that privately-held companies can more easily raise capital in the financial markets than publicly-owned ones.•Unprofitable companies survive. Governments may "bail out" poorly run businesses with money when, economically, it may be better to let the business fold.•Unprofitable units survive. Parts of a business which persistently lose money are more likely to be shut down in a private business.•Political influence. Nationalized industries can be prone to interference from politicians for political or populist reasons. Such as, for example, making an industry buy supplies from local producers, when that may be more expensive than buying from abroad, forcing an industry to freeze its prices/fares to satisfy the electorate or control inflation, increasing its staffing to reduce unemployment, or moving its operations to marginal constituencies; it is argued that such measures can cause nationalized industries to become uneconomic and uncompetitive.In particular, the Performance, Goals, and Unprofitable companies survive reasons are held to be the most important because money is a scarce resource: if government-run companies are losing money, or if they are not as profitable as possible, this money is unavailable to other, more efficient firms. Thus, the efficient firms will have a harder time finding capital, which makes it difficult for them to raise production and create more employment.The basic argument given for privatization is that governments have few incentives to ensure that the enterprises they own are well run. On the other hand, private owners, it is said, do have such an incentive: they will lose money if businesses are poorly run. The theory holds that, not only will the enterprise's clients see benefits, but as the privatized enterprise becomes more efficient, the whole economy will benefit. Ideally, privatization propels the establishment of social, organizational and legal infrastructures and institutions that are essential for an effective market economy.Another argument for privatization is, that to privatize a company which was non-profitable (or even generated severe losses) when state-owned means taking the burden of financing it off the shoulders and pockets of taxpayers, as well as free some national budget resources which may be subsequently used for something else. Especially, proponents of the laissez-faire capitalism will argue, that it is both unethical and inefficient for the state to force taxpayers to fund the business that can't work for itself. Also, they hold that even if the privatized company happens to be worse off, it is due to the normal market process of penalizing businesses that fail to cope with the market reality or that simply are not preferred by the customers.Many privatization plans are organized as auctions where bidders compete to offer the state the highest price, creating monetary income that can be used by the state.AgainstOpponents of privatization dispute the claims made by proponents of privatization, especially the ones concerning the alleged lack of incentive for governments to ensure that the enterprises they own are well run, on the basis of the idea that governments must answer to the people. It is arguedthat a government which runs nationalized enterprises poorly will lose public support and votes, while a government which runs those enterprises well will gain public support and votes. Thus, democratic governments, under this argument, do have an incentive to maximize efficiency in nationalized companies, due to the pressure of future elections.Furthermore, opponents of privatization argue that it is undesirable to let private entrepreneurs own public institutions for the following reasons:•Profiteering. Private companies do not have any goal other than to maximize profit.•Corruption. Buyers of public property have often, most notably in Russia, used insider positions to enrich themselves - and civil servants in the selling positions - grossly.•No public accountability. The public does not have any control or oversight of private companies.•Cuts in essential services. If a government-owned company providing an essential service (such as water supply) to all citizens is privatized, its new owner(s) could stop providing this service to those who are too poor to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable.•Inefficiency. A centralized enterprise is generally more cost effective than multiple smaller ones. Therefore splitting up a public company into smaller private chunks will reduce efficiency.•Natural monopolies. Privatization will not result in true competition if a natural monopoly exists.•Concentration of wealth. Profits from successful enterprises end up in private pockets instead of being available for the common good.•Insecurity. Nationalized industries are usually guaranteed against bankruptcy by the state.They can therefore borrow money at a lower interest rate to reflect the lower risk of loan default to the lender. This does not apply to private industries.•Downsizing. In cases where public services or utilities are privatized, this can create a conflict of interest between profit and maintaining a sufficient service. A private company may be tempted to cut back on maintenance or staff training etc, to maximize profits.•Waste of risk capital. Public services are per definition low-risk ventures that don't need scarce risk capital that is needed better elsewhere.•Not all good things are profitable. A public service may provide public goods that, while important, are of little market value, such as the cultural goods produced by public television and radio.In practical terms, there are many pitfalls to privatization. Privatization has rarely worked out ideally because it is so intertwined with political concerns, especially in post-communist economies or in developing nations where corruption is endemic. Even in nations with advanced market economies like Britain, where privatization has been popular with governments (if not all of the public) since the Thatcher era, problems center on the fact that privatization programs are very politically sensitive, raising many legitimate political debates. Who decides how to set values on state enterprises? Does the state accept cash or for government-provided coupons? Should the state allow the workers or managers of the enterprise to gain control over their own workplace?Should the state allow foreigners to buy privatized enterprises? Which levels of government can privatize which assets and in what quantities?In the short-term, privatization can potentially cause tremendous social upheaval, as privatizations are often always accompanied by large layoffs. If a small firm is privatized in a large economy, the effect may be negligible. If a single large firm or many small firms are privatized at once and upheaval results, particularly if the state mishandles the privatization process, a whole nation's economy may plunge into despair. For example, in the Soviet Union, many state industries were not profitable under the new system, with the cost of inputs exceeding the cost of outputs. After privatization, sixteen percent of the workforce became unemployed in both East Germany and Poland. The social consequences of this process have been staggering, impoverishing millions, but to little social benefit in many post-Communist countries. In the process, Russia has gone from having one of the world's most equal distributions of wealth in the Soviet era to one of the least today. There has been a dearth of large-scale investment to modernize Soviet industries and businesses still trade with each other by means of barter.In speaking about the transformations in the post-communist countries, however, one must take into account the specifics of the communist and socialist regime which ruled those countries for decades. There are no easy answers regarding those issues. Some argue that it was the cumulation of mismanagement and inattention to the market realities that lead to such fatal consequences, given that most of the assets of those companies had not renovated for decades and their technology was outdated. Further, opening of the markets for import of the products which, in many cases, offered higher quality or lower prices, has given the consumers new array of choices to compete with the old national industries.Privatization in the absence of a transparent market system may lead to assets being held by a few very wealthy people, a so-called oligarchy, at the expense of the general population. This may discredit the process of economic reform in the opinion of the public and outside observers. This has occurred notably in Russia, Mexico, and Brazil.Moreover, where free-market economics are rapidly imposed, a country may not have the bureaucratic tools necessary to regulate it. This has been a pertinent problem in Russia and in many South American countries, although some other Eastern European countries, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, fared better in this respect, partly through the support of the European Union. Paradoxically, while Britain has long had a market economy, it also faced this issue after it privatized utilities in the Thatcher era; Britain's utilities regulator was often criticized as being ineffective.Most economists argue that if a privatized company is a natural monopoly, or exists in a market which is prone to serious market failures, consumers may be worse off when the company is in private hands. This seems to have been the case with rail privatization in the UK and in New Zealand; in both countries, public disaffection has led to government intervention. In cases where privatization has been successful, it is because genuine competition has arisen. A good example of this is long-distance telecommunications in Europe, where the former state-owned enterprises losttheir monopolies, competitors entered the market, and tariffs for international calls fell dramatically.British Rail is an example of privatization program that has been deemed a failure and largely abandoned. The track-owning company has been effectively repossessed by the British government, and many of the train-running companies are at risk of having their concession removed on the grounds that they fail to provide adequate services. One of them, Connex, actually had its franchise cut short in June 2003 by the government for what the Strategic Rail Authority called "poor financial management." However, in other cases, particularly in poor countries, privatized enterprises cannot be renationalized so easily. These governments do not have the political will to do it, and there is strong pressure exerted by international lending agencies to maintain the privatization.If the privatization does not fully transfer property rights to the newly private firm, there may be disincentives for the firm to make capital investments. This was a particular problem in the case of the privatized rail track-leasing company in the United Kingdom.Many have argued that the strategy of privatization in Russia differed from those seen in more successful post-communist economies such as Hungary and Poland. The defects of the process in Russia, combined with capital market liberalization and failure to establish institutional infrastructure, have led to incentives for capital flight, contributing to post-communist economic contraction in Russia.Likewise, countries such as Argentina, which embarked upon far-reaching privatization programs, selling off valuable, profitable industries such as energy companies, have seen the rapid impoverishment of their governments. Revenue streams which could previously be directed towards public spending suddenly dried up, resulting in a severe drop in government services.Privatization can also have a ripple effect on local economies. State-owned enterprises are often required by law to patronize national or local suppliers. Privatized companies, in general, do not have that restriction, and hence will shift purchasing elsewhere. Bolivia underwent a rigorous privatization program in the mid 1990s, with disastrous impact on the local economy.The Wall Street Journal has reported that the World Bank, historically a supporter of denationalization in developing countries, has also begun to voice concerns over privatization. It no longer believes that privatization should be recommended in all cases. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has written a book on the subject called Globalization and its Discontents. Mexico's President Vicente Fox has come under criticism for his plans to privatize Mexico's electrical power generating industry.Finally, it has been argued that the Chinese economic reform has illustrated that economic reform can take place in the absence of large-scale privatization.The above arguments have centered on whether or not it is practical to apply privatization in the real world, but some reject the profit incentive, the theoretical basis for privatization, itself. Someopponents of privatization argue that because the driving motive of a private company is profit, not public service, the public welfare may be sacrificed to the demands of profitability. There is no definitive answer, but it is very often argued that essential services, such as water, electricity, health, primary education, and so forth, should be left in public hands. This argument, of course, relies on the view on state one holds, regarding what it should or should not be obligated to do. What is seen as desirable by a socialist may not be by a supporter of capitalism, and vice versa.OutcomesAcademic studies show that in competitive industries with well-informed consumers, privatization consistently improves efficiency. Such efficiency gains mean a one-off increase in GDP, but through improved incentives to innovate and reduce costs also tend to raise the rate of economic growth. The type of industries to which this generally applies include manufacturing and retailing. Although typically there are social costs associated with these efficiency gains, these can be dealt with by appropriate government support through redistribution and perhaps retraining.In sectors that are natural monopolies or public services, the results of privatization are much more mixed. In general, if the performance of the existing public sector operation is sufficiently bad, privatization will tend to improve matters. However, much of this may be due to the imposition of related reforms such as improved accounting systems, regulatory systems, and increased financing, rather than privatization itself. Indeed, some studies show that the greatest gains from privatization are achieved in the pre-privatization period as reforms are made to prepare for the transfer to private hands. In economic theory, a private monopoly behaves much the same as a public one.Alternatives to privatizationCorporatizationMain article: corporatizationNew Zealand has experienced the privatization of its telecommunication industry, its railway system and part of its electricity market. The process of privatization was halted in 1999 when the New Zealand Labour Party won the election. Although most of the electricity generation and the electricity transmission system remain state owned, the government has corporatized this sector as well as New Zealand Post, the Airways Corporation and other smaller state-owned enterprises (SOEs).The effect of corporatization has been to convert the state departments into public companies and interpose commercial boards of directors between the shareholding ministers and the management of the enterprises. To some extent, this model has enabled efficiencies to be gained without ownership of strategic organizations being transferred. This has been the policy of the People's Republic of China.Notable privatizationsSee also: List of privatizationsPrivatization programmes have been undertaken in many countries across the world, falling into three major groups. The first is privatization programmes conducted by transition economies in eastern Europe after 1989in the process of instituting a market economy. The second is privatization programmes carried out in developing countries under the influence of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. The third is privatization programmes carried out by developed country governments, the most comprehensive probably being those of New Zealand and the United Kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s.Anti-privatization campaignsPrivatization proposals in key public service sectors such as water and electricity are in many cases strongly opposed by opposition political parties and civil society groups. Usually campaigns involve demonstrations and political means; sometimes they may become violent (eg Cochabamba Riots of 2000 in Bolivia; Arequipa, Peru, June 2002). Opposition is often strongly supported by trade unions. Opposition is usually strongest to water privatization- as well as Cochabamba (2000), recent examples include Ghana and Uruguay(2004). In the latter case a civil-society-initiated referendum banning water privatization was passed in October 2004.See also。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Broker and brokerage
Broker is a person or company who does not trade as a principal, but puts buyers and sellers in touch with one another. Stockbrokers do this for stocks and shares; commodity brokers for commodities, insurance brokers for insurance policies, and shipping brokers for tramp and charters shipping. Brokers are able to charge commission for this service because of their specialized knowledge of the markets.
broker acts as an intermediary in a sale or other business transaction between two parties. Such a person conducts individual transactions only, is given no general authority by the employers, discloses the names of the principals in the transaction to each other, and leaves to them the conclusion of the deal. The broker neither possesses the goods sold nor receives the goods procured; brokers take no market risks and transfer no title to goods or to anything else. A broker earns a commission, or brokerage, when the contract of sale has been made, regardless of whether the contract is satisfactorily executed. The broker is paid by the party that started the negotiation. In practice, merchants and other salespeople act as brokers at times.
Brokers are most useful in establishing trade connections in those large industries where a great many relatively small producers (e.g., farmers) compete for a wide market. They operate in strategic cities and keep in active touch with the trade needs of their localities and with one another. They are important in determining prices, routing goods, and guiding production, and in those functions play a part similar to that of the highly organized exchanges. Brokers also negotiate trades in property not directly affecting production; examples are stockbrokers and real estate brokers.
Types of Brokers
Employment agents are really brokers, as they bring together the buyers and sellers of labor. Merchandise brokers arrange sales between manufacturers and wholesalers or retailers, between producers and users of raw materials, and sometimes between two manufacturers. Small concerns use retail brokers instead of maintaining their own sales forces. Insurance brokers bring together insurance companies and those who want insurance. They are most useful to those needing several types of insurance protection and to those whose large risks must be divided among many companies. Real estate brokers negotiate sales and leases of farms, dwellings, and business property and are often also insurance brokers. Ship brokers keep informed of the movement of vessels, of cargo space available, and of rates for shipment and sell this information to shippers. They serve tramp carriers in the main, inasmuch as the larger ship lines have their own agents. Such brokers also serve as post agents, in which capacity they settle bills for stores and supplies, pay the wages of the crew, and negotiate insurance for the vessel and cargo. They also arrange the sale of ships. In the organized markets, such as grain and stock exchanges, commission merchants and straight selling displace brokerage in large part, but between cities and where there is no active exchange, brokers in grain and other commodities are active. Members of organized exchanges usually act as commission merchants or trade on their own account. However, in the New York Stock Exchang e a group of members called “floor brokers” perform the actual trading on the exchange floor for representatives of commission houses, taking no responsibility and
receiving a small fee. In the United States, note brokers buy promissory notes from businessmen and sell them to banks. Traders in acceptances and foreign bills of exchange are known in the United States as acceptance dealers. Customs brokers are not actually brokers; they act as agents for importers in estimating duties and clearing goods. The pawnbroker is a private money lender. Technology in the 1990s changed the nature and importance of some brokers, when the Internet allowed people to, for example, trade stocks and purchase insurance directly, without the aid (or with the minimum aid) of brokers.
Brokerage is the fee, normally a small percentage of the price, charged by a broker for the service of putting buyer and seller in touch with one another.。