Ad

Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts

Friday, February 11, 2011

Financial Impact of Mubarak's Resignation...


Shares rally as Mubarak resigns

Suez CanalEgypt's strategic role has caused jitters in oil and stock markets
Global markets have climbed and the price of oil fallen after Hosni Mubarak stepped down as Egypt's president.
There had been concerns that almost three weeks of anti-government protests could have spread across the region and added to market volatility.
But analysts said that Mr Mubarak's resignation had helped make Egypt's political future a little clearer, boosting investor sentiment.
Oil had been trading higher earlier in the day, but fell after the news broke.
'Jittery'
While not a major oil producer, Egypt plays a key role because it controls the Suez Canal, a major route for oil tankers and cargo ships.
Over the past three weeks, investors have been worried that unrest in Egypt could spread to nearby oil-producing nations, disrupting supplies.
US light sweet crude lost $1.12 (70p) to $85.61. In London, Brent crude fell 31 cents to $101.13. It had initially fallen further but pulled back.
However, Inenco energy analyst Zakir Lorgat said that there would continue to be volatility in the oil market.
"A power-vacuum now exists, so the oil markets will continue to be jittery until a decision is reached on what the Egyptian Government will look like going forward," said Inenco energy analyst Zakir Lorgat.
"The market will be worried about the risk of contagion within the region and whether the Egyptian example will create a domino effect . They will be looking to be reassured that the region will remain stable over the coming weeks and months."
On Wall Street, the Dow Jones iindex Dow rose 43.97 points, 0.4%, to 12,273.3, its highest close since June 2008. The Nasdaq index rose 0.7% to 2,809.4 points.
In London, the FTSE 100 shrugged off heavy losses to finish 0.7% higher at 6,062.9 points, while the key French and German markets also enjoyed late surges.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Incentive Anyone?

Companies who are looking for qualified candidates need to change their strategy if they are not finding the qualifications those jobs require.  By doing so they will gain, not only great employees, but loyal employees as well.

"In a brutal job market, here's a task that might sound easy: Fill jobs in nursing, engineering and energy research that pay $55,000 to $60,000, plus benefits.

Yet even with 15 million people hunting for work, even with the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, some employers can't find enough qualified people for good-paying career jobs.

Ask Steve Jones, a hospital recruiter in Indianapolis who's struggling to find qualified nurses, pharmacists and MRI technicians. Or Ed Baker, who's looking to hire at a U.S. Energy Department research lab in Richland, Wash., for $60,000 each.

Economists say the main problem is a mismatch between available work and people qualified to do it. Millions of jobs with attractive pay and benefits that once drew legions of workers to the auto industry, construction, Wall Street and other sectors are gone, probably for good. And those who lost those jobs generally lack the right experience for new positions popping up in health care, energy and engineering.

Many of these specialized jobs were hard to fill even before the recession. But during downturns, recruiters tend to become even choosier, less willing to take financial risks on untested workers." -- Associated Press

So, you can see, a strategy shift is in play. Why don't these companies, who are looking for qualified candidates, pay a lower wage in the beginning, utilizing the rest of what they were going to use in salary to educate and train the employee(s) they need, in the way they need. They ought to utilize a contract and the incentive of higher pay following the education and/or training to entice those prospectively fabulous employees?

Friday, April 24, 2009

"Vanilla" Change.

I am so glad that Obama plans to make sure that "Every credit card issuer has to issue a plain vanilla easy-to-understand, simplest possible credit card...that the average user can feel comfortable with." After all, the butterscotch crunch version was so hard to understand!

Sure, there needs to be reform. That's okay as long as I can charge whatever I want and have the tax payer pay for it, just like my mortgage (I wish!). I think I may just go out and buy some new furniture today so that I can be sure that everyone else in the country can pay for it.

Do I think that perhaps there may be some issues with loopholes in the credit card company policies within every credit card company in the US? Perhaps. However, have people been taking advantage of the system? Of course they have.

What do you bet that the new legislation will help those who have taken advantage of the system, over spending and then being irresponsible when paying their bills. Let me give it to you in the "vanilla" version. They buy and then don't pay. I know it's hard to understand for us "average" people.

There is an argument that the policies may reduce the amount of credit offered to lower-income individuals. Wouldn't that be just too bad? I mean, everyone should have the same stuff in the same amounts shouldn't they? Differences in the way people live are highly over-rated anyway. People should get paid the same no matter what job they get income from, right? Doctor-Fast Food Grill Cook. It's all the same, right? I hope the legislation comes down that we all have to drive the same battery powered cars, wear the same uniform colors, and that we must bow down to the Obama-God so that we don't have to think for ourselves and therefore don't have any consequences for our actions.

Amen.