Appearance
🎉 your ETH🥳
"Hayne Leland is an economist and professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to becoming emeritus, he was the Arno Rayner Professor of Finance at the Haas School of Business. Before joining Berkeley, Leland was an assistant professor in economics at Stanford, and he has held visiting professorships at UCLA and the University of Cambridge. He received his B.A. from Harvard, followed by an M.Sc.(Econ) at the London School of Economics and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. He received an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Paris (Dauphine) in 2007. His research in capital markets and corporate finance has received several awards, including the inaugural $100,000 Stephen A. Ross Prize in Financial Economics in 2008. In 2016, he was named “Financial Engineer of the Year” by the International Association of Quantitative Finance. Leland served as President of the American Finance Association in 1997, and has served on numerous scientific advisory boards, including those of Goldman Sachs, Wells Capital Management, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and the Swiss National Science Foundation. He was an independent trustee of the mutual funds group of Barclays Global Investors (BGI), prior to BGI's acquisition by BlackRock. Much of Leland's theoretical work has found direct applications in asset management and corporate financial structure."Replicating Options with Positions in Stock and Cash," (with Mark Rubinstein), Financial Analysts Journal, July–August 1981“Option Pricing and Replication with Transactions Costs,” Journal of Finance 40 (1985), 1283-1301"Corporate Debt Value, Bond Covenants, and Optimal Capital Structure," Journal of Finance 49, (1994), 1213-1252. This includes portfolio insurance, option pricing with transactions costs, and valuation of risky corporate debt. More recently, he has worked on introducing equity- sharing contracts in financing home purchase, and structuring retirement funds to provide assured income over retirement years. Portfolio Insurance and the 1987 Crash.An extensive account is available in Diana Henriques, A First-Rate Catastrophe: The Road to Black Monday, the Worst Day in Wall Street History. Henry Holt and Co., 2017. . In 1979, Leland realized that then-recent work on option pricing could be applied to dynamically hedge a portfolio, resulting in a financial product termed “portfolio insurance.” In conjunction with Mark Rubinstein, a Berkeley colleague and options expert, and John O’Brien, a financial industry professional, he co-founded Leland O’Brien Rubinstein Associates(LOR) in 1980 to provide portfolio protection strategies.Peter Bernstein, “The Ultimate Invention,” Capital Ideas: The Improbable Origins of Modern Wall Street. Free Press, 1992. Paperback edition, Wiley, 2005. LOR's protected asset base grew rapidly, reaching $50b by mid-1987 (the equivalent of almost $500b when adjusted to the S&P; 500 level in mid-2017). In 1987, Leland and his partners Rubinstein and O’Brien were co-named “Businessmen of the Year” by Fortune Magazine. The portfolio insurance strategy required that clients sell (to hedge) stocks or stock index futures as the market declined. During the crash of October 19, 1987, the drop in stock prices required LOR to sell large amounts of stock index futures, creating further downward pressure on stock prices. While portfolio insurance was not the initial cause of the crash, the Brady Commission Report examining trading that day concluded that insurance selling, roughly 15% of total stock and futures sold that day, was contributory to the magnitude of the crash."Brady Report": The Presidential Task Force on Market Mechanisms (1988): Report of the Presidential Task Force on Market Mechanisms. Nicholas F. Brady (Chairman), U.S. Government Printing Office. Market mechanism failures, including the failure of the SuperDot system, were also held responsible in the Brady Report.Some retrospective ideas are presented in G. Gennotte and H. Leland, “Market Liquidity, Hedging, and Crashes,” American Economic Review 80 (1990), 999-1021, and in H. Leland, “Leverage, Forced Asset Sales, and Market Stability,” in The Future of Computer Trading on Financial Markets. UK Government Office for Science, 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/computer-trading-leverage-forced- asset-sales-and-market-stability The SuperTrust: The first U.S. ETF.A history of the SuperTrust and ETF history files is at http://www.40act.com/community/etf-supertrust-history-files/ Looking for a means to provide portfolio protection without dynamic trading, LOR then developed a fund structure to allow fully collateralized portfolio protection and basket trading.A Harvard Business School case study by P. Tufano and B. Kyrillos, https://hbr.org/product/leland-o-brien-rubinstein-associates-inc- supertrust/an/294050-PDF-ENG, traces the LOR’s decisions on structuring the SuperTrust and difficulties before reaching the targeted initial funding. LOR's SuperTrust consisted of two funds, known as SuperUnits, whose assets were S&P; 500 stocks and short-term Treasury securities, respectively. To provide a basket product, shares of the SuperUnits required continuous trading when markets were open, similar to the trading of exchange-listed closed-end fund shares. But for the funds' market value to closely track the underlying portfolio value — a problem with closed-end funds whose shares often fell to discounts — fund shares also needed to be redeemable daily for cash or for underlying assets at net asset value (NAV). The SuperTrust's SuperUnits allowed smaller redemptions in cash, with larger redemptions in stock bundles.An additional feature of LOR’s fund shares was their optional divisibility into sub-shares termed SuperShares, one of which provided protection of the S&P; 500 Index value over a three-year term that was fully collateralized by US Treasury securities. A more complete description is provided in P. Tufano and B. Kyrillos, op.cit., and the short video (1990) referenced at http://www.40act.com/community/etf-supertrust-history-files/ The Investment Company Act of 1940 disallows such a fund structure, i.e., with simultaneous closed-end and open-end fund properties, but it does allow the SEC to provide exemptions to the regulations when they're deemed to be in the public interest.In particular, exemption from Rule 22(d) was needed. Rule 22(d) required open-end fund shares to trade only at NAV, which was typically calculated only after the market close. See J.Heffernan and J. Jorden, “Section 22(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940—its Original Purpose and Present Function,” Duke Law Journal Volume 1973: 975- 1008. LOR applied for exemptive relief from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in April 1989. Arguments justifying LOR's request for exemption are available at http://www.40act.com/community/etf-supertrust-history-files/. While these arguments are now widely accepted and relief has been granted to hundreds of ETFs, the request was controversial at the time and required five amended applications and a hearing before the full Commission prior to final approval in October 1990.In the Matter of the SuperTrust Trust for Capital Market Fund, Inc., (“SuperTrust”), Investment Company Rel. Nos. 17613 (Jul. 25, 1990) (notice) and 17809 (Oct. 19, 1990) (the “SuperTrust Order”), granting exemptions under Section 6(c) from Sections 4(2), 22(c) and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, and 22(d) of the Act and an order under Sections 11(a) and 11(c) of the Act. SEC News Digest, Issue 90-204, October 22, 1990, available at http://www.40act.com/community/etf-supertrust-history-files/.A fuller history of the difficulty in achieving the requested exemptions is provided in P. Tufano and B. Kyrillos, op.cit. After some initial funding delays, LOR launched the SuperTrust with $1 billion in assets in November, 1992, with the SuperUnit shares trading on the American Stock Exchange (Amex).Due to earlier licensing arrangements between Standard and Poor’s (S&P;) and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), S&P; insisted that the sub-shares be traded on the CBOE rather than their more natural home on the Amex. The SuperTrust's SuperUnits were the first U.S. exchange-traded funds that allowed daily redemption of shares at NAV. Notably, the SuperTrust's Index SuperUnit was the first S&P; 500 based ETF. The Amex initially had cooperated with LOR to develop a basket product, but subsequently decided to follow their own path with the Standard and Poor's Depository Receipt (SPDR), also based on the S&P; 500. Their request for exemptive relief from the SEC was filed over a year after LOR's, and approval was received two years after LOR's.The sequence of SuperTrust and SPDR filings is documented in https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-11-15/s71115-12.pdf. Their proposal was somewhat different in structure (e.g., redemption in large stock bundles only, and no sub-shares) but cited The SuperTrust exemptive order as precedent, using many of the same arguments made previously in application by LOR.SPDR Trust, Series I, et al., Notice of Application, File No. 812-7545, Investment Company Act of !940 Rel. No. 18959 (Sept. 17, 1992), See "Applicants' Legal Analysis," paragraph 4. The SPDR was launched in 1993, three months after SuperUnit shares began trading, with initial asset value just over $6 million. However, with the Amex's marketing blitz (e.g., “spiders” descending from the ceiling onto the trading floor) and campaign, the SPDR ultimately became the basket product that gained liquidity and for many years was the largest ETF. The SuperTrust, which had an initial term of 3 years, failed to gain competitive liquidity and was not rolled over after its initial term. References Living people Alumni of the London School of Economics Exchange-traded funds Financial economists Haas School of Business faculty Harvard University alumni University of California, Berkeley alumni Year of birth missing (living people) "
"Ural Diesel Engine Plant () is a company based in Yekaterinburg, Russia. History The plant was formed in 1941 as Ural Turbine Factory as part of a large scale movement of industrial capacity from western Russia during the Second World War. The engine manufacturing facilities of the Kirov Plant in Leningrad and the Kharkov diesel factory 75 (Харьковский дизельный завод №75) were transported to the Ural region of Russia (Sverdlovsk). The factory was in production by August 1941, and produced M-40 aero engines and V-2 engines for tanks. By 1942 production was over 20 engines per day, and in 1942 received an Order of Lenin and in 1943 an Order of the Red Banner of Labour for its contributions. By August 1945 the plant had produced 25,000 engines. After the end of WWII production of diesel engines continued, with the plant producing engines for oil drilling, excavators, locomotives and mobile generators. Exports of engines began in 1956. After 1962 all engines produced were turbocharged. After 1979 the factory became a key supplier of diesel engines for Belarusian dump truck manufacturer BelAZ. In 2003 the company became and open joint stock company as ОАО "Турбомоторный завод", in 2008 it was acquired by the Sinara Group and became the limited liability company Ural diesel engine plant ( ООО Уральский дизель-моторный завод УДМЗ ). As of 2010 the plant produces diesel generators, turbochargers and diesel engines for locomotives and heavy off-road equipment in the range. References External links * Sinara Group Companies based in Yekaterinburg Manufacturing companies established in 1941 Diesel engine manufacturers Engine manufacturers of Russia 1941 establishments in the Soviet Union Engine manufacturers of the Soviet Union "
"The Pohatcong Valley Groundwater Contamination superfund site is located in Warren County, Franklin Township, Washington Township, and Washington Borough in New Jersey. It was recognized in the 1970s but not designated into the National Priorities List until 1989. It is a contamination of the Kittany Limestone Aquifer underlying the Pohatcong Valley. This toxic site stretches across 9,800 acres of land. The chemicals that are polluting the groundwater and soil are trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). If someone were to be exposed to these harmful toxins for a short amount of time it can result in unconsciousness. Long term effects unfortunately include liver and kidney problems. The plans to clean up this superfund site are costing the companies involved, Pechiney Public Packaging Inc., Bristol Meyers Squibb Company, Albea Americas Inc, and Citigroup Inc, about $92 million, and the situation still has not been completely resolved. Origins Pohatcong Township is located in Warren County, New Jersey, United States. It was established in 1881. Franklin Township is in Somerset County, New Jersey and was originally formed in 1798 as Eastern precinct. Washington Township is also a part of Warren County, New Jersey. It was established as a township in 1849. Lastly, Washington is a borough of Warren County, and similar to Pohatcong and Washington Township, lies in the easternmost region of the Lehigh Valley. Town history Established in 1881, “The name Pohatcong Township is alleged to come from the Lenni Lenape Native American term that means ‘stream between split hills’”. The Native Americans used that phrase to describe the area most likely because of its appearance. It was created by being divided off of Greenwich Village in 1882. The recorded population in 2010 was 3,339. =Franklin Township= Franklin Township's most recent population count was about 62,300. “It traditionally is a farming community that has transitioned into a rapidly growing suburb”. In 1798, it became one out of 104 of New Jersey's townships. The designated naming of Franklin Township still remains unknown between Benjamin Franklin or his illegitimate son William Franklin. =Washington township= Washington Township's most recent population count was recorded in 2010, which came out to be 6,651. “It is actually one of 6 municipalities in the state of New Jersey with the name Washington”. It was named for the first president of the United States, George Washington. Portions of the township were split up in 1868 to make up Washington Borough. =Washington Borough= According to the latest Washington Borough census, the latest population count in 2010 was a recorded 6,461. A New Jersey Legislature made that it was incorporated as a borough in 1868. It was also named for George Washington, making it one of more than ten communities named after him. Company history Pechiney Plastic Packaging Inc. was established in 1999, based out of Chicago, IL. They sell plastic packaging products such as dairy, meat, types of healthcare, and specialty products. Bristol Meyers Squibb Company is a worldwide industry founded in 1858 based out of New York City, NY. Albea Americas Inc began operating in 2010 and is a steel mill located in Washington, NJ. Rexam Beverage Can Company is another worldwide company that's main facility is in the United Kingdom. Lastly, the Citigroup Inc is globally functioning in over 160 countries. It was founded in 1812, and works as a global financial service company. Superfund designation Pohatcong Valley's danger was recognized in the late 1970s. It was not until 1989, when the area was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) as an active superfund site. State intervention It took about a full decade for EPA to add Pohatcong Valley to the NPL. At that time there was a total of two infected public supply wells. It was not until the mid-1980s when a recorded 79 properties were contaminated with high levels of PCE and TCE that the state began to be concerned. Then in 1989, the government designated an EPA that established Pohatcong Valley as an active superfund site. National intervention It took the national government about two full decades for them to take action in the Pohatcong Valley superfund sites. There were many recorded contaminations in the area, but it was not an alarming amount until 1989. They began soil samples, monitoring of the wells, and aquifer testing. Health and environmental hazards This superfund site consists of two dangerous chemical compounds, trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). Both consist of very harmful toxins that have long term effects on the central nervous system. PCE is generally used for dry cleaning fabrics and decreasing metals, while TCE is typically used as an industrial solvent. The short-term effects of PCE can include unconsciousness, and the long term effects often include liver and kidney damage. At this site its environmental issues include the contamination of soil and groundwater. The health concerns come from the private unfiltered wells that produce drinking water opposed to the public water supply. Short-term health effects Human exposure to PCE and TCE can have lasting effects on a person. Some of the short-term effects of these chemicals include dizziness, unconsciousness, irritation in the eyes and upper respiratory tract, severe shortness of breath, sweating, nausea, sleepiness, confusion, and impairment of coordination. Long-term health effects The more serious issues that can be developed from PCE and TCE include kidney and liver damage, problems with one's immune system, central nervous system, and respiratory failure. If you are pregnant, exposure to these chemicals can cause a series of birth defects, as well as developmental and reproductive issues. Environmental effects PCE and TCE create unsafe drinking water. When they are released into the soil it evaporates very quickly into the air because of its high vapor pressure and low rate of adsorption in soil. It is extremely toxic to aquatic organisms. Clean up Clean up started up in 1999 and the process included action such as “...sampling private wells at off-site properties, conducting soil sampling, soil gas surveys, aquifer testing and a geological survey”. Clean up continued in 2006 with three different plans specifically for each area that is contaminated. The process is still underway and remains an active superfund site. Initial cleanup The first recorded cleanup process began in 1999 and “...it entailed installing groundwater monitor wells and temporary well points, sampling private wells at off-site properties, conducting soil sampling, soil gas surveys, aquifer testing and a geological survey”. This process was to find out exactly what was the extent of the contamination and to evaluate the extent of the environmental and human health risks. Current status The next steps into resolving the issue of this superfund site began taking place in 2006. Due to the outstanding 9,800-acre contaminated area, it was divided into three sections. Washington Borough, Franklin Township, and Washington Township all have individual plans to further the cleanup process. Washington Borough called for the contaminated groundwater to be pumped out of the ground, cleaned and then put back. Franklin Township went about it with a more personal approach. Individual homes with toxic water wells received their own treatment systems. Washington Township has contaminated soil that “...Pechiney and Albea are yet to determine who is responsible to clean that area”. References External links * Superfund sites in New Jersey "