DOCSLIB.ORG

Morning Headlines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MORNING HEADLINES RUSSIAN CAPITAL MARKETS FRIDAY, MARCH 05, 2004 Sales/TradingLondon (+44 020) 7439 6881 Moscow (+7 095) 995 2400 MARKET NEWS COMMENT Surgutneftegas minori Market: Continue to see support in Gazprom, LUKoil and the cells. PM ties attempt to cancel ratified today.RTS closed Thursday at 669.26 up 0.3% or 1.99 points from the previous close. Trading volume Thursday fell to U.S. $45.5 million from U.S. $54.2 million Wednesday. The MICEX closed Thursday at Sibneft charged with 582.11, up 0.1% from the previous close. Trading volume on the MICEX $420 mn more in back was down to $582.1 million from $660.0 million on Wednesday. taxes LUKoil JV to tap Saudi natural gas field EVENTS Russia’s cellular sub TO WATCH Mar 11 Golden Telecom 2003 US GAAP results scriber base up 5% in Mar 14 Russia's presidential election scheduled February to 39.9 million Mar 20 SurgutNG AGM Mar 26 Results of March 14 presidential elections to be an URSI: new licenses for nounced Mar 28 Sibneft EGM and 2003 GAAP results Ekaterinburg, Sverd Yukos 2003 operating results Apr 1 Russia’s oil export duty set at $35.2 per tonne lovsk region; plans con Apr 6 Sibneft’s EMG expected to be held solidation Apr 15 NW Tel to consider merger with Lensvyaz and Komi's Svyaz RUSSIAN ADRs, LONDON INDICATORS Changes Changes Price Vol 1 day 1 mo YTD Value 1 day 1 mo YTD $ $ mn % % % $ % % % Gazprom 34.2 28.2 3.0 14.8 31.9 Urals, bbl 30.7 0.7 15.1 6.5 Lukoil 116.1 79.1 1.7 15.0 24.7 Nickel, t 13150.0 5.6 12.3 20.6 Surgut 31.7 6.2 1.6 12.2 7.8 Eurobond Rus10 112.5 0.1 5.8 7.3 Sibneft 32.2 8.4 1.8 3.0 3.9 Gazprom 09EUR 114.2 0.0 7.6 9.2 Yukos 49.6 42.6 1.0 6.7 18.1 Tatneft 25.9 0.5 0.1 2.4 14.9 UES 31.7 14.0 0.8 4.9 16.2 Source: Bloomberg Mosenergo 8.1 0.1 0.6 2.5 22.7 INDICES Rostelecom 14.1 0.8 1.3 6.6 12.8 MTS 114.4 55.3 4.0 18.9 38.2 Changes Vimpelcom 88.9 33.6 2.5 24.3 21.0 Value 1 day 1 mo YTD % % % Norilsk Nickel 72.2 55.3 2.8 1.7 8.6 RTS 669.3 0.3 6.9 18.0 MICEX 592.3 0.1 8.1 15.1 Dow Jones 10588.0 0.0 1.1 1.3 Nasdaq Comp 2055.1 1.1 1.8 2.6 Bovespa 22393.0 0.7 6.2 0.7 FTSE 4559.1 0.8 4.0 1.8 Source: Bloomberg Source: Bloomberg EQUITIES Changes Mcap Price Volume 52 wk 52 wk 4 wk 1 day 1 1 mo YTD .$ bn (RTS high Low vol, % wk. % % $ MICEX) $ $ $ mn % $mn Lukoil 24.7 29.1 52.8 1.8 4.9 13.5 24.8 29.3 13.6 49.4 Surgutneftegaz, or 25.9 0.6 33.7 1.2 0.0 9.9 8.2 0.7 0.3 16.5 Surgutneftegaz, pr 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.4 11.9 8.3 0.5 0.2 3.3 Sibneft 15.5 3.3 2.0 0.3 1.2 3.7 14.4 3.7 1.9 2.5 Tatneft 2.9 1.3 2.4 1.0 0.8 2.4 14.7 1.4 0.8 3.9 Yukos 33.8 12.5 36.7 1.1 1.0 6.9 18.5 16.4 9.3 35.3 Gazprom, local 45.3 1.9 70.3 3.4 1.0 24.0 44.4 57.0 24.7 20961.0 Gazprom, ADS 80.8 34.2 28.2 3.0 6.7 14.8 31.9 34.2 11.5 238.2 UES, or 13.6 0.3 124.1 0.1 0.6 2.4 13.1 0.3 0.1 63.7 UES, pr 0.3 0.4 0.0 5.1 7.9 17.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 Mosenergo 2.3 0.1 7.4 0.5 0.5 1.4 20.2 0.1 0.0 4.5 MTS, ADS 11.3 114.4 55.3 4.0 10.0 18.9 38.2 115.9 40.2 337.9 Vimpelcom, ADS 4.8 88.9 33.6 2.5 6.6 24.3 21.0 89.7 33.9 451.9 Rostelecom, or 1.7 2.4 25.7 0.4 1.3 5.6 14.1 2.4 1.3 6.1 Rostelecom, pr 1.7 1.4 0.0 2.9 11.5 14.6 1.7 0.9 0.9 Golden Telecom 1.0 33.5 1.5 4.7 3.9 14.5 20.3 34.7 13.8 41.2 MGTS 0.8 11.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 6.8 25.0 Ural SI 1.4 0.0 2.9 0.8 5.0 4.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 Volga Telecom 0.9 3.1 0.1 0.0 1.9 1.3 16.9 3.5 1.4 1.0 South Telecom 0.4 0.1 0.0 3.9 7.2 12.6 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4 Norilsk Nickel 15.5 72.3 40.4 1.3 4.0 1.8 10.9 75.8 23.3 46.2 Severstal 3.8 172.0 0.5 1.1 2.6 1.7 41.1 189.5 56.7 2.2 2 Sberbank 6.8 345.0 20.2 0.3 0.6 14.6 32.4 357.0 205.0 14.6 Source: Bloomberg FIXED INCOME Changes Changes Current YTM CY Spre 1 day 1 1 mo 3 mo 1 day 1 wk 1 mo % % ad % wk. % % % % % % Indices EMBI+ 285.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 23.6 482 3 28 31 EMBI+ Russia 331.2 0.3 2.4 3.6 22.8 263 12 35 29 Eurobonds Russia 03 97.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 3.1 9.7 175 2 12 78 Russia 05 109.0 0 0.1 1.3 3.4 3.2 8.0 8 15 16 8 Russia 07 117.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.3 8.5 234 3 9 35 Russia 10 112.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 5.8 7.3 245 19 24 6 Russia 18 134.7 0 0.8 2.2 9.5 7.2 8.2 296 25 35 2 Russia 28 161.7 0 0.1 0.3 1.3 7.3 7.9 318 23 23 12 Russia 30 98.2 0 0.1 0.4 1.3 6.9 5.1 318 19 40 12 Russia EUR 04 102.1 0 0.0 0.2 1.7 3.4 8.8 138 5 17 14 Russia EUR 05 107.1 0 0.0 0.1 2.4 4.1 8.8 155 1 3 13 L MARKETS A Source: Bloomberg MACROECONOMIC STATISTICS – USA RUSSIAN CAPIT Date Time Statistic For Actual Market Prior Revised From Expects Mat 01 8:30 AM Personal Income Jan 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% Mat 01 8:30 AM Personal Spending Jan 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% Mat 01 10:00 AM ISM Index Feb 61.4 62.5 62.0 63.6 Mar 04 8:30 AM Initial Claims Feb28 345K 345K 345K 350K Mar 04 8:30 AM Productivity Q4 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% Mar 04 10:00 AM Factory Orders Jan 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% Mar 05 8:30 AM Nonfarm Payrolls Feb 120K 125K 112K Mar 05 8:30 AM Unemployment Rate Feb 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% Source: Yahoo Finance Morning bell March 05 2004 Friday NEWS SURGUTNEFTEGAS MINORITIES ATTEMPT TO CANCEL TREASURY SHARES Several minority investors of Surgutneftegas (SNGS, $0.63, Sell), including Hermitage Capital Management, Prosperity Capital Management and several other investors that manage about $10 billion in Russian assets, have filed a lawsuit in KhantyMansiisk Arbitration Court in an attempt to cancel 62% of Surgutneftegas shares held by its subsidiaries, according Hermitage CEO Bill Browder. Browder believes that the stock held by Surgut subsidiaries should be classified as treasury shares and cancelled because it hasn’t been used in a year. The Russian Law on JointStock Companies states that a company must cancel unissued treasury shares held on its balance sheet if they are not used within one year. The company can neither receive divi dends from those shares, nor vote with them. In Surgutneftegas’ case, its shares are held by its subsidiaries, and both vote and receive dividends. We see no direct violation of the law. However, the minority investors have said they believe the law should be applied more strictly in this case. Surgut’s managers control the company through shares held by the subsidiaries. Canceling the shares would in our view reduce manage ment control over Surgut and make it a takeover target. We believe that Surgut minority investors have lit tle chance of winning the case.
Recommended publications
  • Russia's Oil&Gas Development and Exports Trends Oil Industry Gas

    Russia's Oil&Gas Development and Exports Trends Oil Industry Gas

    Eleventh Japan–Russia Energy and Environment Dialogue in Niigata R1-GROMOV Russia’s Oil&Gas Development and Exports Trends Alexey GROMOV, PhD, Principal Director on Energy Studies Institute for Energy and Finance The Eleventh Japan-Russia Energy and Environment Dialogue (JREED) Niigata, Japan 30th January 2019 1 Oil Industry Global oil market context Russian oil production and export trends up to 2023 2 Gas Industry EU Gas market trends Russian gas production and export trends up to 2023 1 ©ERINA Eleventh Japan–Russia Energy and Environment Dialogue in Niigata R1-GROMOV OPEC+ Agreement has a crucial role to stabilize the global oil market 90 $/bbl Brent WTI 80 70 60 OPEC+ Agreement Update 50 (June 2018) OPEC+ Agreement 40 Update (December 2018) OPEC+ OECD commercial Agreement stocks reduction 30 Decrease (December during 2015 2016) 20 01/15 03/15 05/15 07/15 09/15 11/15 01/16 03/16 05/16 07/16 09/16 11/16 01/17 03/17 05/17 07/17 09/17 11/17 01/18 03/18 05/18 07/18 09/18 11/18 • OPEC+ Agreement (December 2016) to cut collective oil production of 1,8 MMb/d supported global oil prices and reduced price volatility in 1Q2017- 1Q2018. • The threat of US sanctions against Iranian oil exports led to OPEC+ Agreement Update in June 2018 (increase collective oil production of 1 MMb/d). • New OPEC+ Agreement Update (December 2018) to cut collective oil production of 1,2 MMb/d has to reduce the oil market volatility in 2019 2 OPEC+ Agreement Update in December 2018 lead to gradually balancing the global oil market in 2019 Changes in global liquid fuels market balance Mbd 2.0 1.6 1.2 -0,4 -0,4 0.8 -0,8 0,75 0.4 0,7 +0,2 +0,2 +0,4 0,4 0,35 +0,4 -0,1 0,1 0.0 -0,2 +0,3 +1,2 -0,1 +0,3 -0,5 +0,3 -0.4 +0,2 -0,0 +0,2 Доп.
  • Negativliste. Fossil Energi

    Negativliste. Fossil Energi

    Bilag 6. Negativliste. Fossil energi Maj 2017 Læsevejledning til negativlisten: Moderselskab / øverste ejer vises med fed skrift til venstre. Med almindelig tekst, indrykket, er de underliggende selskaber, der udsteder aktier og erhvervsobligationer. Det er de underliggende, udstedende selskaber, der er omfattet af negativlisten. Rækkeetiketter Acergy SA SUBSEA 7 Inc Subsea 7 SA Adani Enterprises Ltd Adani Enterprises Ltd Adani Power Ltd Adani Power Ltd Adaro Energy Tbk PT Adaro Energy Tbk PT Adaro Indonesia PT Alam Tri Abadi PT Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd Africa Oil Corp Africa Oil Corp Alpha Natural Resources Inc Alex Energy Inc Alliance Coal Corp Alpha Appalachia Holdings Inc Alpha Appalachia Services Inc Alpha Natural Resource Inc/Old Alpha Natural Resources Inc Alpha Natural Resources LLC Alpha Natural Resources LLC / Alpha Natural Resources Capital Corp Alpha NR Holding Inc Aracoma Coal Co Inc AT Massey Coal Co Inc Bandmill Coal Corp Bandytown Coal Co Belfry Coal Corp Belle Coal Co Inc Ben Creek Coal Co Big Bear Mining Co Big Laurel Mining Corp Black King Mine Development Co Black Mountain Resources LLC Bluff Spur Coal Corp Boone Energy Co Bull Mountain Mining Corp Central Penn Energy Co Inc Central West Virginia Energy Co Clear Fork Coal Co CoalSolv LLC Cobra Natural Resources LLC Crystal Fuels Co Cumberland Resources Corp Dehue Coal Co Delbarton Mining Co Douglas Pocahontas Coal Corp Duchess Coal Co Duncan Fork Coal Co Eagle Energy Inc/US Elk Run Coal Co Inc Exeter Coal Corp Foglesong Energy Co Foundation Coal
  • Climate and Energy Benchmark in Oil and Gas

    Climate and Energy Benchmark in Oil and Gas

    Climate and Energy Benchmark in Oil and Gas Total score ACT rating Ranking out of 100 performance, narrative and trend 1 Neste 57.4 / 100 8.1 / 20 B 2 Engie 56.9 / 100 7.9 / 20 B 3 Naturgy Energy 44.8 / 100 6.8 / 20 C 4 Eni 43.6 / 100 7.3 / 20 C 5 bp 42.9 / 100 6.0 / 20 C 6 Total 40.7 / 100 6.1 / 20 C 7 Repsol 38.1 / 100 5.0 / 20 C 8 Equinor 37.9 / 100 4.9 / 20 C 9 Galp Energia 36.4 / 100 4.3 / 20 C 10 Royal Dutch Shell 34.3 / 100 3.4 / 20 C 11 ENEOS Holdings 32.4 / 100 2.6 / 20 C 12 Origin Energy 29.3 / 100 7.3 / 20 D 13 Marathon Petroleum Corporation 24.8 / 100 4.4 / 20 D 14 BHP Group 22.1 / 100 4.3 / 20 D 15 Hellenic Petroleum 20.7 / 100 3.7 / 20 D 15 OMV 20.7 / 100 3.7 / 20 D Total score ACT rating Ranking out of 100 performance, narrative and trend 17 MOL Magyar Olajes Gazipari Nyrt 20.2 / 100 2.5 / 20 D 18 Ampol Limited 18.8 / 100 0.9 / 20 D 19 SK Innovation 18.6 / 100 2.8 / 20 D 19 YPF 18.6 / 100 2.8 / 20 D 21 Compania Espanola de Petroleos SAU (CEPSA) 17.9 / 100 2.5 / 20 D 22 CPC Corporation, Taiwan 17.6 / 100 2.4 / 20 D 23 Ecopetrol 17.4 / 100 2.3 / 20 D 24 Formosa Petrochemical Corp 17.1 / 100 2.2 / 20 D 24 Cosmo Energy Holdings 17.1 / 100 2.2 / 20 D 26 California Resources Corporation 16.9 / 100 2.1 / 20 D 26 Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen (PKN Orlen) 16.9 / 100 2.1 / 20 D 28 Reliance Industries 16.7 / 100 1.0 / 20 D 29 Bharat Petroleum Corporation 16.0 / 100 1.7 / 20 D 30 Santos 15.7 / 100 1.6 / 20 D 30 Inpex 15.7 / 100 1.6 / 20 D 32 Saras 15.2 / 100 1.4 / 20 D 33 Qatar Petroleum 14.5 / 100 1.1 / 20 D 34 Varo Energy 12.4 / 100
  • Evolution in the Russian Gas Market – the Competition for Customers

    Evolution in the Russian Gas Market – the Competition for Customers

    Evolution in the Russian Gas Market – The Competition for Customers James Henderson NG 73 January 2013 The contents of this paper are the author’s sole responsibility. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, of any of the Institute’s members, and/or of the author’s other affiliations. Copyright © 2013 Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (Registered Charity, No. 286084) This publication may be reproduced in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. ISBN 978-1-907555-66-4 ii Abbreviations and Units of Measurement bbls Barrels bcm Billion cubic metres bcma Billion cubic metres per annum bn bbls Billion barrels boepd Barrels of oil equivalent per day bpd Barrels per day E&P Exploration and Production ESPO East Siberia – Pacific Ocean (Pipeline) FSU Former Soviet Union IOC International Oil Company kboepd Thousands of barrels of oil equivalent per day kbpd Thousands of barrels per day km Kilometres mm bbls Million barrels mcm Thousands of cubic metres mmboepd Millions of barrels of oil equivalent per day] mmbpd Millions of barrels per day mmbtu Million British thermal units mmcm Millions of cubic metres mmt Millions of tonnes mmtpa Millions of tonnes per annum Mm tonnes Millions of tonnes P&P Proved and Probable tcm
  • US Sanctions on Russia

    US Sanctions on Russia

    U.S. Sanctions on Russia Updated January 17, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45415 SUMMARY R45415 U.S. Sanctions on Russia January 17, 2020 Sanctions are a central element of U.S. policy to counter and deter malign Russian behavior. The United States has imposed sanctions on Russia mainly in response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Cory Welt, Coordinator Ukraine, to reverse and deter further Russian aggression in Ukraine, and to deter Russian Specialist in European aggression against other countries. The United States also has imposed sanctions on Russia in Affairs response to (and to deter) election interference and other malicious cyber-enabled activities, human rights abuses, the use of a chemical weapon, weapons proliferation, illicit trade with North Korea, and support to Syria and Venezuela. Most Members of Congress support a robust Kristin Archick Specialist in European use of sanctions amid concerns about Russia’s international behavior and geostrategic intentions. Affairs Sanctions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are based mainly on four executive orders (EOs) that President Obama issued in 2014. That year, Congress also passed and President Rebecca M. Nelson Obama signed into law two acts establishing sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Specialist in International Ukraine: the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Trade and Finance Ukraine Act of 2014 (SSIDES; P.L. 113-95/H.R. 4152) and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (UFSA; P.L. 113-272/H.R. 5859). Dianne E. Rennack Specialist in Foreign Policy In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Countering Russian Influence Legislation in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L.
  • 2020 Annual Report

    2020 Annual Report

    Online Annual Report Gazprom Neft Performance review Sustainable 2020 at a glance 62 Resource base and production development CONTENTS 81 Refining and manufacturing 4 Geographical footprint 94 Sales of oil and petroleum products 230 Sustainable development 6 Gazprom Neft at a glance 114 Financial performance 234 Health, safety and environment (HSE) 8 Gazprom Neft’s investment case 241 Environmental safety 10 2020 highlights 250 HR Management 12 Letter from the Chairman of the Board of Directors 254 Social policy Technological Strategic report development Appendices 264 Consolidated financial statements as at and for the year ended 31 December 2020, with the 16 Letter from the Chairman of the Management Board 122 Innovation management independent auditor’s report About the Report 18 Market overview 131 2020 highlights and key projects 355 Company history This Report by Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom Neft (“Gazprom 28 2020 challenges 135 Import substitution 367 Structure of the Gazprom Neft Group Neft PJSC”, the “company”) for 2020 includes the results of operational activities of Gazprom Neft PJSC and its subsidiaries, 34 2030 Strategy 370 Information on energy consumption at Gazprom collectively referred to as the Gazprom Neft Group (the “Group”). 38 Business model Neft Gazprom Neft PJSC is the parent company of the Group and provides consolidated information on the operational and financial 42 Company transformation 371 Excerpts from management’s discussion and performance of the Group’s key assets for this Annual Report. The analysis of financial condition and results of list of subsidiaries covered in this Report and Gazprom Neft PJSC’s 44 Digital transformation operations interest in their capital are disclosed in notes to the consolidated Governance system IFRS financial statements for 2020.
  • Key Determinants for the Future of Russian Oil Production and Exports

    Key Determinants for the Future of Russian Oil Production and Exports

    April 2015 Key Determinants for the Future of Russian Oil Production and Exports OIES PAPER: WPM 58 James Henderson* The contents of this paper are the authors’ sole responsibility. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies or any of its members. Copyright © 2015 Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (Registered Charity, No. 286084) This publication may be reproduced in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. ISBN 978-1-78467-027-6 *James Henderson is Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. i April 2015 – Key Determinants for the Future of Russian Oil Production and Exports Acknowledgements I would like to thank my colleagues at the OIES for their help with this research and to those who also assisted by reviewing this paper. In particular I am very grateful for the support and comments provided by Bassam Fattouh, whose contribution was vital to the completion of my analysis. I would also like to thank my editor, Matthew Holland, for his detailed corrections and useful comments. Thanks also to the many industry executives, consultants, and analysts with whom I have discussed this topic, but as always the results of the analysis and any errors remain entirely my responsibility. ii April 2015
  • The Future of Russian Oil Production in the Short, Medium, and Long Term

    The Future of Russian Oil Production in the Short, Medium, and Long Term

    September 2019 The Future of Russian Oil Production in the Short, Medium, and Long Term Introduction This paper has two major goals. The first is to update reports published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies in April 2015 and February 2017 which both assessed the short-term outlook for Russian oil production in the light of sanctions and the first OPEC+ agreement which committed Russia to a production cut of 300,000 bpd from January 2017. Both these papers argued that, despite the impact of sanctions on the financing of the Russian oil sector and the availability of international technology in some spheres (most specifically offshore, the Arctic, and shale oil), the immediate impact on Russian oil production would be low due to the number of new projects already under development or close to production. Indeed, it was already clear in February 2017 that the main constraint on Russian oil output in the short-term would be the low oil price and the resulting cooperation between OPEC and non-OPEC producers to constrain production in order to reduce the oversupply of oil in the global market. As will be discussed below, the initial plan for a six-month production cut by the OPEC+ group was ultimately extended to 18 months, and then after only a six-month period of increased output a new agreement was put into place at the start of 2019. As a result, the full potential of Russian production has yet to be proven, with the Russian oil companies remaining frustrated at the necessity of holding back new fields and restraining production at many existing assets.
  • The Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust

    The Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust

    Federal Trade Commission TIMOTHY J. MURIS Chairman MOZELLE W. THOMPSON Commissioner ORSON SWINDLE Commissioner THOMAS B. LEARY Commissioner PAMELA JONES HARBOUR Commissioner Bureau of Economics Luke M. Froeb Director Mark W. Frankena Deputy Director for Antitrust Paul A. Pautler Deputy Director for Consumer Protection Timothy A. Deyak Associate Director for Competition Analysis Pauline M. Ippolito Associate Director for Special Projects Robert D. Brogan Assistant Director for Antitrust Louis Silvia Assistant Director for Antitrust Michael G. Vita Assistant Director for Antitrust Denis A. Breen Assistant Director for Economic Policy Analysis Gerard R. Butters Assistant Director for Consumer Protection This is a report of the Bureau of Economics of the Federal Trade Commission. The views expressed in this report are those of the staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner. The Commission has voted to authorize staff to publish this report. Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the Bureau of Economics under the supervision of David T. Scheffman, former Director; Mary T. Coleman, former Deputy Director and Mark Frankena, Deputy Director; and Louis Silvia, Assistant Director. Bureau economists who researched and drafted this report were Jay Creswell, Jeffrey Fischer, Daniel Gaynor, Geary Gessler, Christopher Taylor, and Charlotte Wojcik. Bureau Research Analysts who worked on this project were Madeleine McChesney, Joseph Remy, Michael Madigan, Paul Golaszewski, Matthew Tschetter, Ryan Toone, Karl Kindler, Steve Touhy, and Louise Sayers. Bureau of Economics staff also acknowledge the review of drafts and many helpful comments and suggestions from members of the staff of the Bureau of Competition, in particular Phillip L.
  • Vladimir Leonidovich Bogdanov Date of Birth: 28.05.1951

    Vladimir Leonidovich Bogdanov Date of Birth: 28.05.1951

    Information on the candidates for election to Rosneft Board of Directors 1. Full Name: Vladimir Leonidovich Bogdanov Date of birth: 28.05.1951 Education: higher, Tyumen Industrial Institute, Academy of People’s Economy with the Council of Ministers of the USSR, PhD Econ. Places of employment and positions for the last five years in the chronological order, including part-time jobs: Organization: OJSC Surgutneftegas Period: 1984 to date Title: General Director, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors Positions held in the governing bodies of other legal entities: Chairman of the Board of Directors of CJSC Surgutneftegasbank, member of the Board of Directors of OJSC Rosneft Oil Company,, LLC National Petroleum Consortium. List of entities to whom the candidate is an affiliate with statement of affiliation grounds: V.L. Bogdanov is an affiliate to OJSC Surgutneftegas as the member of the Board of Directors and authorized sole executive body of OJSC Surgutneftegas, as well as a member of the group of individuals who own OJSC Surgutneftegas; V.L. Bogdanov is affiliated with CJSC Surgutneftegasbank, OJSC Rosneft Oil Company, LLC National Petroleum Consortium, being a member of the Boards of Directors of the said entities. Nature of any relationship to individuals – members of the Company management bodies or bodies of control over the Company financial and economic performance: V.L. Bogdanov is not a relative of the President, members of the Management Board, members of the Board of Directors and members of the Internal Audit Commission of Rosneft. Contact address of the candidate: 628415 Tyumen Region, Surgut, 1 Grigory Kukuevitsky st., bldg.1.
  • National Oil Company Efficiency: Theory and Evidence

    National Oil Company Efficiency: Theory and Evidence

    RICE UNIVERSITY National Oil Company Efficiency: Theory and Evidence Stacy Eller Peter Hartley Kenneth B Medlock III James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy RICE UNIVERSITY 1 RICE UNIVERSITY Theoretical Model 2 Economic model precepts RICE UNIVERSITY n Intertemporal, optimizing model of a National Oil Company (NOC) n Contrast a NOC to a shareholder­owned firm n Capture systematic effects from the NOC institutional arrangement n Weaker monitoring of a NOC and differing political goals imply that in addition to commercial returns NOC management choices will reflect: u Increased employment in the firm of labor or other domestic inputs u Domestic consumer surplus from oil product sales u Pressure to increase current relative to future revenue – a high discount rate n Without these concerns, the NOC optimization problem approaches that of a private monopoly firm n In the efficient case: u Domestic oil consumers are neither taxed nor subsidized relative to other constituents, and u Domestic consumer surplus is weighed identically to NOC profits 3 NOC versus efficient case: output, inputs, cash flow RICE n Output shifted forward, lower reserves & cash flow, higher employment UNIVERSITY Output Reserves 0.40 1.20 NOC output NOC reserves 0.35 Efficient output Efficient reserves 1.00 0.30 0.80 0.25 0.20 0.60 0.15 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.05 0.00 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Years Years Employment Cash Flow 4.00 0.25 NOC employment NOC cash flow 3.50 0.20 Efficient cash Efficient employment flow 3.00 0.15 2.50 0.10 2.00 0.05 1.50 0.00
  • Ishares, Inc. Form NPORT-P Filed 2021-07-28

    Ishares, Inc. Form NPORT-P Filed 2021-07-28

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM NPORT-P Filing Date: 2021-07-28 | Period of Report: 2021-05-31 SEC Accession No. 0001752724-21-158946 (HTML Version on secdatabase.com) FILER iShares, Inc. Mailing Address Business Address 400 HOWARD STREET 400 HOWARD STREET CIK:930667| IRS No.: 510396525 | State of Incorp.:MD | Fiscal Year End: 0831 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 Type: NPORT-P | Act: 40 | File No.: 811-09102 | Film No.: 211120986 (415) 670-2000 Copyright © 2021 www.secdatabase.com. All Rights Reserved. Please Consider the Environment Before Printing This Document Schedule of Investments (unaudited) iShares® MSCI Global Energy Producers ETF May 31, 2021 (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) Security Shares Value Common Stocks Argentina — 0.0% YPF SA, ADR(a) 7,735 $ 36,354 Australia — 2.0% Beach Energy Ltd. 67,158 65,780 Cooper Energy Ltd.(a) 61,425 13,033 New Hope Corp. Ltd. 16,926 18,988 Oil Search Ltd. 78,442 220,377 Paladin Energy Ltd.(a) 89,180 33,989 Santos Ltd. 74,529 389,527 Washington H Soul Pattinson & Co. Ltd. 4,303 98,145 Whitehaven Coal Ltd.(a) 35,061 42,583 Woodside Petroleum Ltd. 38,129 641,815 1,524,237 Austria — 0.4% OMV AG 5,824 332,227 Brazil — 1.2% 3R Petroleum Oleo Gas SA(a) 1,274 10,015 Enauta Participacoes SA 4,095 12,100 Petro Rio SA(a) 24,222 91,698 Petroleo Brasileiro SA 147,966 756,623 870,436 Canada — 7.3% Advantage Energy Ltd.(a) 7,397 24,676 ARC Resources Ltd.