Jenna Blochowicz (University of Virginia)
Location: 368A Heady Hall
Contact Person: Joshua Rosenbloom
Title: Bargaining for Exclusive Rights in Two-Sided Markets: The Case of the NFL and Broadcast Channels
Location: 368A Heady Hall
Contact Person: Joshua Rosenbloom
Title: Bargaining for Exclusive Rights in Two-Sided Markets: The Case of the NFL and Broadcast Channels
The answer is hidden in your question. The company hedges to mitigate risk, to guard against excessive downturns in profit. It “pays” for this risk protection by potentially foregoing some profit. There is of course a risk-return tradeoff.
Currencies that are fully pegged to USD will continue to buy the same amount of US dollars. So a peg, by definition, keeps the exchange rate fixed against the base currency, which in this case is USD.
Now USD has depreciated (went down as you said) significantly (about 10%) against Euro in the last one year. It has also depreciated against other major currencies such as pound, Swiss franc, Canadian dollar, etc. A dollar now buys less of these currencies.
My best understanding is that the acquisition you indicated was completed in 2007, but Aramark retained its identity as a company. TARP was created in 2008, and a comprehensive list of companies that received “bailout” funds can be found at https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list. I fail to see evidence that Aramark directly received any “bailout” funds.
No, there is nothing preventing non-profit organizations from offering insurance. Indeed, this is quite common in health care, with non-profit health insurers accounting for over 60% of health plans with more than 100,000 people enrolled (https://www.firstquotehealth.com/health-insurance-news/non-profit-health-insurance). In the 2012 Consumer Reports health insurance ranking, all of the top ten private plans were nonprofits.
The unusually shaped yield curve was in the news the other day. But it was attributed to the Fed buying 10-year T-notes, which temporarily lowered their yields relative to notes/bonds with shorter maturity. It sounds to me the quote cited by the author tries to extrapolate and make a statement about “perpetual” government bonds (“consoles”), which is not something governments are presently issuing. It is a problematic statement subject to the classical “Lucas critique.”
Yes, there is a potential for double counting---in the case of publicly traded companies included in the SP500 that are also held in the Berkshire's portfolio (e.g., Apple or American Express). The extent to which this may skew any ratings or analyses would depend on the diversification of the latter portfolio and Berkshire's own weight in the SP500 index. That said, Berkshire Hathaway also owns many privately held companies (i.e., companies that don't issue publicly traded shares).
The need to pay it back would discipline the actions of the borrower, make them choose more worthwhile projects. This would raise efficiency.
Without questioning the specific numbers cited in the study, I would argue that much of the total does not represent a bailout of banks in a conventional sense. For example, $10T in central bank liquidity swaps refers to agreements between the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks (e.g., the European Central Bank) to exchange up to 10T dollars for foreign currency. Interpreting this number as a bailout is objectionable.
Location: 368A Heady Hall
Description: Discover Financial Services:
Information sharing session about internship and full time employment opportunities in the financial industry for M.S. and Ph.D. students in quantitative fields of study.
Presenters:
Salima Yala, VP, Risk Management
Bingrong (Bing) Jiang, Director, Phoenix Analytics Center
Crystal Fruit, Sr. Recruiter, HR