Rohstoff-Explorer: Research oder Neuvorstellung (Seite 1669)
eröffnet am 13.03.08 13:14:32 von
neuester Beitrag 14.05.24 09:16:07 von
neuester Beitrag 14.05.24 09:16:07 von
Beiträge: 29.542
ID: 1.139.490
ID: 1.139.490
Aufrufe heute: 26
Gesamt: 2.702.027
Gesamt: 2.702.027
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| 11.01.09, 16:18 | 7125 | |
| vor 56 Minuten | 4366 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 4215 | |
| vor 54 Minuten | 2974 | |
| vor 54 Minuten | 2865 | |
| vor 50 Minuten | 2678 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 2660 | |
| vor 50 Minuten | 2597 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 2. | 18.852,90 | +0,44 | 198 | |||
| 2. | 1. | 5,7990 | -8,86 | 194 | |||
| 3. | 4. | 7,1500 | +1,45 | 105 | |||
| 4. | 3. | 41,89 | -8,09 | 77 | |||
| 5. | 5. | 3,3695 | +5,83 | 65 | |||
| 6. | 6. | 166,98 | +1,77 | 49 | |||
| 7. | 8. | 0,5000 | +11,61 | 44 | |||
| 8. | 12. | 5,6500 | -4,85 | 44 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
FeedbackZitat von XIO: davon steht in meiner jahresabrechnung aber nix
Gibt man nix an ist es defnitiv wie schwarzarbeit/steuerhinterziehung... also vorsicht. wie gesagt, eher besser MLP´s zu meiden.
ich weiss auch nicht bzgl steuererklärung nach usa. hab da schon gelesen die würden eine einfordern. glaub aber wenn man sich mit den 30% abgeführten quellensteuern zufrieden gibt hat sichs erledigt. weiss es aber nicht genau.
jedenfalls besser andere high yields ins depot legen die sauber gleich pro divi dann abgeführt werden und man hat seine ruhe
aber manchmal macht man sich´s ja komplizierter als nötig.. naja nächstes jahr nicht mehr.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.258.608 von XIO am 03.07.14 23:07:33ist aber so... 30% quellensteuer wird einbehalten.
teheoretisch ist eine us-steuererklärung pflicht (ich nehme mal an um von 30% wieder was zurückzubekommen weiss es aber nicht)
was netto eingeht auf dem konto wird nicht abgegolten da es als zusatzeinkommen gilt. also wie ein nebenjob sozusagen und ist somit einkommenssteuerpflichtig.
von daher trenn ich mich auch wieder bis ende 14 von allen mlp´s... wenn´s ungeschickt kommt triffts die steuerklasse evtl.
sid aber eh nicht viel euros.
aber ich vermute würde man es genau nachrechnen, wärs evtl gar nicht so toll.
das ganze taucht auch auf der steuerbescheinigung nicht auf, da es eben keine divis sind.
man muss es zusammenzählen quasi un angeben evtl belege der divizahlungen.. bzw eben distrubutions-zahlungen.
alternativen besser daher wie
Capstone infrastructure, phx energy, retail food group oder Seadrill
MLP´s sollte man eigentlich meiden wegen dem steuerkram... oder es zumdeinst genau nachrechnen was es denn netto war letztlich.
teheoretisch ist eine us-steuererklärung pflicht (ich nehme mal an um von 30% wieder was zurückzubekommen weiss es aber nicht)
was netto eingeht auf dem konto wird nicht abgegolten da es als zusatzeinkommen gilt. also wie ein nebenjob sozusagen und ist somit einkommenssteuerpflichtig.
von daher trenn ich mich auch wieder bis ende 14 von allen mlp´s... wenn´s ungeschickt kommt triffts die steuerklasse evtl.
sid aber eh nicht viel euros.
aber ich vermute würde man es genau nachrechnen, wärs evtl gar nicht so toll.
das ganze taucht auch auf der steuerbescheinigung nicht auf, da es eben keine divis sind.
man muss es zusammenzählen quasi un angeben evtl belege der divizahlungen.. bzw eben distrubutions-zahlungen.
alternativen besser daher wie
Capstone infrastructure, phx energy, retail food group oder Seadrill
MLP´s sollte man eigentlich meiden wegen dem steuerkram... oder es zumdeinst genau nachrechnen was es denn netto war letztlich.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.258.618 von prallhans am 03.07.14 23:08:49Inflation...? Zuletzt war es doch Deflation...? Die Entscheidung zwischen zwei Dingen ist oft von ungeahnten Abgründen getrennt!
Nachhilfe zu China:
PMI Industrie > 51
PMI Dienstleistungen > 53
Der chinesische Mittelstand
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=ECNS&p=D&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=…
RMB/USD --> Doppeltop danach hohes Volumen
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=CNY&p=D&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=p…
EEM --> Kaufsignal nach 3 Jahren Pause
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=EEM&p=D&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=p…
SSE --> bildet Dreieck --> dauert nicht mehr lange dann zieht er nach!
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$SSEC&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id…
Da gibt es kaum etwas zu interpretieren - Gefühle zählen nicht! Produzenten sind dann nicht erste Wahl, sondern Explorer!
Nachhilfe zu China:
PMI Industrie > 51
PMI Dienstleistungen > 53
Der chinesische Mittelstand
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=ECNS&p=D&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=…
RMB/USD --> Doppeltop danach hohes Volumen
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=CNY&p=D&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=p…
EEM --> Kaufsignal nach 3 Jahren Pause
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=EEM&p=D&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=p…
SSE --> bildet Dreieck --> dauert nicht mehr lange dann zieht er nach!
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$SSEC&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id…
Da gibt es kaum etwas zu interpretieren - Gefühle zählen nicht! Produzenten sind dann nicht erste Wahl, sondern Explorer!
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.253.662 von likeshares am 03.07.14 12:30:07Eine Erholung Chinas sehe ich noch nicht, ich sehe die ROhstoffe aus rein inflationären Gründen steigen. Im schlimmsten Fall bekommen wir Inflation und kein oder wenig Wachstum besonders in den USA. Die Arbeitsmarktzahlen heute sind Spätindikatoren, nicht vergessen. Und China ist noch lange nicht vom Eis, siehe SSE Composite. Kupfer darf ohne den steigen. Alles nur Inflation. Kommt auch bei uns. Lohnsteigerungen bei nicht unbedingt steigenden Gewinnen. Dasselbe Problem dürfte China bekommen. Aber den Rohstoffen ist das wurscht. Hat was mit Geldmenge, Umlaufgeschwindigkeit, Inflationserwarungen, Zinsen, Realzins, etc. zu tun. Uns soll´s egal sein, sie werden steigen. Kupfer ist aus dem Abwärtstrend, Platin aus dem Seitwärtstrend.
Minen kaufe ich da keine.
Minen kaufe ich da keine.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.258.600 von mge am 03.07.14 23:05:46davon steht in meiner jahresabrechnung aber nix
Trading Spotlight
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.257.586 von Boersiback am 03.07.14 20:32:25die Divis von LP's sind aber glaube ich auf Anlegerebene mit dem vollen persönlichen Steuersatz zu versteuern, anders als Divis von Preferreds oder REITs (15% Quellensteuer mit Progressionsvorbehalt in D).
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.257.514 von XIO am 03.07.14 20:17:59die kenn ich... war mal nahe dran reinzugehen. da kam dann aber beim "kollegen" NRP eine dicke gewinnwarnung un divikürzung und ich hatte keine lust mehr auf kohle... war dann die zeit wo ich NRP in gg OCIR getauscht hatte... NRP ist ja auch dick in OCIR. dachte mir dann auf kohle verzichte ich mal lieber.
muss man aber heute wieder neu evaluieren....
muss man aber heute wieder neu evaluieren....
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.257.482 von XIO am 03.07.14 20:12:39PS: interessante Präsentation, geht eher um Kohle da.. fette Dividende!
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N…
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N…
Rhino Resource Partners L.P.
Market Cap: $412.6m
http://www.rhinolp.com/other_non_mining.html
Muskie Proppant
In December 2012, we made an initial investment of approximately $2.0 million in a new joint venture, Muskie Proppant LLC ("Muskie"), with affiliates of Wexford Capital. Muskie was formed to provide sand for fracking operations to drillers in the Utica Shale region and other oil and gas basins in the U.S. Muskie had limited operations during 2013.
http://www.muskieprop.com/
evt. mal nen Blick wert.. kommt bei mir in die WL
Market Cap: $412.6m
http://www.rhinolp.com/other_non_mining.html
Muskie Proppant
In December 2012, we made an initial investment of approximately $2.0 million in a new joint venture, Muskie Proppant LLC ("Muskie"), with affiliates of Wexford Capital. Muskie was formed to provide sand for fracking operations to drillers in the Utica Shale region and other oil and gas basins in the U.S. Muskie had limited operations during 2013.
http://www.muskieprop.com/
evt. mal nen Blick wert.. kommt bei mir in die WL
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.251.088 von Popeye82 am 03.07.14 02:18:13
Miners urged to chase productivity, to revive returns - MW/CMR/BCG, JOHANNESBURG/BOSTON - Jul 2, 2014
- Natasha Odendaahl -
www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/metals_mining_value…
www.miningweekly.com/article/miners-urged-to-chase-productiv…
"As mining companies’ shareholder returns plunged over the past five years, productivity improvement – in new areas and ways – remained a focus for companies trying to boost value creation, a new report by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has found.
The escalating costs and falling commodity prices, amid an uncertain economic environment, that have squeezed the margins of miners globally, have forced mining companies to take another look at enhancing productivity.
The ‘Value creation in mining: the productivity imperative’ report showed that, from 2002 to 2012, the 42 mining companies reviewed reported a weighted average yearly total shareholder return (TSR) of 16% – 8 percentage points higher than the S&P 500.
Speaking at a roundtable unpacking the results of the report, BCG mining and metals expert Jens Irion explained that, overall, mining created “tremendous” value during the ten-year period, but towards the end of the decade – from 2009 onwards – TSR fell flat.
“The sector created no value in this period. Not even the top ten were immune to the shocks … although they performed better than average.”
The TSR of the top ten mining companies reviewed fell from 38% to less than 15% in 2009.
The top ten mining companies comprised Grupo México, Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal, Industrias Peñoles, KGHM Polska Miedz, First Quantum Minerals, Exxaro Resources, Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile, Israel Chemicals, Antofagasta and Randgold Resources.
By the end of 2013, the combination of falling commodity prices, which was once an important contributor to TSR performance, and rising operating costs had caused the average yearly TSR of the more than 40 companies examined to plummet to –20%, placing the industry under “tremendous” pressure.
“2013 was a particularly bad year,” Irion commented, adding that gold mining companies were hardest hit, losing half their value and producing an average TSR of –51%, owing to the falling gold price.
However, declining commodity prices were not the only factor to weigh on the already “heightened pressure” on companies’ margins and cash flows by the end of 2013.
Ill-timed acquisitions added to some mining companies’ performance difficulties throughout the decade, particularly as merger and acquisition activity increased during the top of the commodity cycle when prices were at their highest.
But the failure of many acquisitions to create value subsequently resulted in major write-downs.
According to BCG’s report, a large proportion of the $60-billion in write-downs from 2012 through 2013 were related to acquired assets.
“The outperformers did not engage in high commodity buy-outs; they acquired bolt-on units,” Irion pointed out.
Operating and capital costs also spiked considerably over the decade, rising at a compound annual growth rate of about 11%.
Despite operating cost increases abating to 9% by 2012, commodity prices also started falling that year.
In addition to the increases in the unit cost of labour, consumables, services and fuel, besides others, weighing on margins and cash flow, deteriorating productivity also contributed to the downfall of the industry.
“It’s clear something needs to happen,” Irion said, noting that productivity improvements had a direct link to TSR growth.
Some mining companies have already undertaken efforts to reduce operating and capital costs, with several mining companies’ CEOs publicly outlining plans to boost efficiencies within their operations.
Achieving healthy returns and enabling long-term success required a steadfast focus on productivity; however, only 25% of transformation programmes succeeded in the long term.
“Successful operation transformation is hard,” he said, pointing to pitfalls such as a lack of strategic perspective, insufficient senior management buy-in and employee resistance preventing the transformation from getting off the ground.
Companies managing to start the step change faced loss of momentum, insufficient capabilities and tools and inadequate resources and budgets.
Further, change was not always sustainable owing to a lack of long-term vision and adaptability, inadequate handover to line management and unaddressed cross-functional inefficiencies.
The report noted that companies could miss opportunities to apply innovative technologies or new ways of thinking to operating an asset in the pursuit of incremental improvements.
“Incremental actions can yield only incremental results. Achieving a step change in performance calls for bold actions – thinking outside the box, rather than being constrained by past or current practices. Technology advances, changes in market conditions, other operations, and even practices within other industries spawn new ideas that can have a powerful impact on improving operations,” the report explained.
Further, the organisational structure, culture or management systems, all of which were critical to enable change, were ignored.
“Reducing headcount and deferring expenditures quickly
reach their limit and a great deal of hidden value can be captured by using a systematic methodology that encompasses not only physical assets but also management systems,” the report concluded. "
Miners urged to chase productivity, to revive returns - MW/CMR/BCG, JOHANNESBURG/BOSTON - Jul 2, 2014
- Natasha Odendaahl -
www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/metals_mining_value…
www.miningweekly.com/article/miners-urged-to-chase-productiv…
"As mining companies’ shareholder returns plunged over the past five years, productivity improvement – in new areas and ways – remained a focus for companies trying to boost value creation, a new report by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has found.
The escalating costs and falling commodity prices, amid an uncertain economic environment, that have squeezed the margins of miners globally, have forced mining companies to take another look at enhancing productivity.
The ‘Value creation in mining: the productivity imperative’ report showed that, from 2002 to 2012, the 42 mining companies reviewed reported a weighted average yearly total shareholder return (TSR) of 16% – 8 percentage points higher than the S&P 500.
Speaking at a roundtable unpacking the results of the report, BCG mining and metals expert Jens Irion explained that, overall, mining created “tremendous” value during the ten-year period, but towards the end of the decade – from 2009 onwards – TSR fell flat.
“The sector created no value in this period. Not even the top ten were immune to the shocks … although they performed better than average.”
The TSR of the top ten mining companies reviewed fell from 38% to less than 15% in 2009.
The top ten mining companies comprised Grupo México, Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal, Industrias Peñoles, KGHM Polska Miedz, First Quantum Minerals, Exxaro Resources, Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile, Israel Chemicals, Antofagasta and Randgold Resources.
By the end of 2013, the combination of falling commodity prices, which was once an important contributor to TSR performance, and rising operating costs had caused the average yearly TSR of the more than 40 companies examined to plummet to –20%, placing the industry under “tremendous” pressure.
“2013 was a particularly bad year,” Irion commented, adding that gold mining companies were hardest hit, losing half their value and producing an average TSR of –51%, owing to the falling gold price.
However, declining commodity prices were not the only factor to weigh on the already “heightened pressure” on companies’ margins and cash flows by the end of 2013.
Ill-timed acquisitions added to some mining companies’ performance difficulties throughout the decade, particularly as merger and acquisition activity increased during the top of the commodity cycle when prices were at their highest.
But the failure of many acquisitions to create value subsequently resulted in major write-downs.
According to BCG’s report, a large proportion of the $60-billion in write-downs from 2012 through 2013 were related to acquired assets.
“The outperformers did not engage in high commodity buy-outs; they acquired bolt-on units,” Irion pointed out.
Operating and capital costs also spiked considerably over the decade, rising at a compound annual growth rate of about 11%.
Despite operating cost increases abating to 9% by 2012, commodity prices also started falling that year.
In addition to the increases in the unit cost of labour, consumables, services and fuel, besides others, weighing on margins and cash flow, deteriorating productivity also contributed to the downfall of the industry.
“It’s clear something needs to happen,” Irion said, noting that productivity improvements had a direct link to TSR growth.
Some mining companies have already undertaken efforts to reduce operating and capital costs, with several mining companies’ CEOs publicly outlining plans to boost efficiencies within their operations.
Achieving healthy returns and enabling long-term success required a steadfast focus on productivity; however, only 25% of transformation programmes succeeded in the long term.
“Successful operation transformation is hard,” he said, pointing to pitfalls such as a lack of strategic perspective, insufficient senior management buy-in and employee resistance preventing the transformation from getting off the ground.
Companies managing to start the step change faced loss of momentum, insufficient capabilities and tools and inadequate resources and budgets.
Further, change was not always sustainable owing to a lack of long-term vision and adaptability, inadequate handover to line management and unaddressed cross-functional inefficiencies.
The report noted that companies could miss opportunities to apply innovative technologies or new ways of thinking to operating an asset in the pursuit of incremental improvements.
“Incremental actions can yield only incremental results. Achieving a step change in performance calls for bold actions – thinking outside the box, rather than being constrained by past or current practices. Technology advances, changes in market conditions, other operations, and even practices within other industries spawn new ideas that can have a powerful impact on improving operations,” the report explained.
Further, the organisational structure, culture or management systems, all of which were critical to enable change, were ignored.
“Reducing headcount and deferring expenditures quickly
reach their limit and a great deal of hidden value can be captured by using a systematic methodology that encompasses not only physical assets but also management systems,” the report concluded. " 
Durchsuchen
