9. Циммерман М., Веденеева К. Русско-английский научно-технический словарь переводчика. М.: Наука, 1993. - 735 с.
10. McGraw-Hill Sybil P. Parker MCGraw-Hill Dictionary of scientific and technical terms, 2002. - 2380 р.
11. Roshan McArthur, Tom McArthur Oxford Companion To English Language. Изд-во: Oxford University Press, 1996. - 1072 р.
Text 1
On My Mind
By Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, senior fellows at the Cato Institute.
Hooked on Subsidies
Why conservatives should join the left"s campaign against nuclear power.
when it comes to politics, we don"t often find ourselves in agreement with Bonnie Raitt or Graham Nash. But now that they are campaigning against new nuclear plants, they"re our friends. Raitt, Nash, the Indigo Girls and other vocal rockers are attacking a provision in pending Senate legislation that would award what they call "massively expensive loan guarantees-potentially a virtual blank check from taxpayers" for nuclear power plant construction.
Even without the new legislation there"s plenty of federal money being doled out. In September NRG Energy, an energy wholesaler in Princeton, N. J., applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a two-reactor nuclear plant near Bay City, Tex. The NRC is expecting 19 similar applications in the next 18 months. If approved, they will be eligible for loan guarantees under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero.
A cold-blooded examination of the industry"s numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That"s far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone"s tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively).
Nuclear energy investments are riskier than investments in coal - or gas-fired electricity. High upfront costs and long construction times mean investors have to wait years to get their money back. The problem here is not just the cost per watt, several times that of a gas plant, but the fact that nuclear plants are big. Result: The upfront capital investment can be 10 to 15 times as great as for a smallgas-fired turbine.
A nuclear plant"s costs are not only higher but more uncertain. Investors have to worry that completion will take place late-or never (witness the abandonment of the reactor at Shoreham, N. Y). Accordingly, nuclear power would have to be substantially cheaper than coal - or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market.
So why does NRG want to build a nuclear plant in Texas? Two factors are in play. First, the license costs a relatively small amount compared with the cost of construction. Second, the federal government would guarantee up to 100% of the $6.5 billion to $8.5 billion NRG might borrow from capital markets (as long as it doesn"t exceed 80% of the project cost). Without such guarantees no investor would lend significant amounts of capital to NRG.
How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don"t.governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors.
The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal.
What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear"s economic problems? Absolutely nothing. There is no more to the right-wing case for nuclear subsidies than there is to the left-wing case for solar subsidies.
If the permitting process is broken, then by all means fix it. If plant safety regulations are excessive, then by all means reform them. If greenhouse gas emissions prove to be a problem, then impose a reasonable carbon tax across the board. But once those tasks are complete, the role for government ends.
We like nuclear power as much as anyone else on the right. But friends don"t let friends get hooked on subsidies. We"re glad to see Raitt and her rocker compadres agree.
Text 2
GREEKS BEARING GIFTS
Innocents at Home
When foreign firms list in the U. S., how well are American investors protected? Not very, if one nasty takeover battle is any indication | By Neil Weinberg
ERIC SEMLER, WHO RUNS A NEW YORK City hedge fund, invests in media and communications companies. One failed deal sticks in his craw, and Semler has gone to federal court in New York City for restitution. He claims that two private equity firms, Texas Pacific Group and Арах Partners, committed securities fraud by driving down the stock price of a Greek company listed on Nasdaq that his fund had a stake in and hiding a potentially higher takeover offer.
The lessons for investors: Just because a foreign company is listed on an American exchange doesn"t mean you are afforded every protection.
"We"re not the sort of guys who are looking to pick a fight," Semler says. "But when someone comes in and steals something from us it"s very frustrating." He claims his fund, TCS Capital Management, was shortchanged $108 million. Texas Pacific Group ($30 billion in investor assets) and Арах in London ($20 billion) decline comment.
Their motion to dismiss the suit, however, speaks volumes. It says the buyout was a purely foreign affair to which U. S. securities laws do not apply. If TCS is to prevail under U. S. law, it will have to convince a federal judge there is clear evidence of securities fraud.
"If they trade on Nasdaq and cheat U. S. investors, it doesn"t matter where the company is incorporated. U. S. securities law applies," says lawyer Howard Kaplan, who is representing TCS.
The shootout involves TIM Hellas, formerly Greece"s third-largest wireless phone company. Sender"s hedge fund started investing in it in early 2004 and eventually put up $83 million, or $18.30 a share, for a 5.3% stake. Semler says TIM Hellas was trading at half the average multiple of European wireless firms. Telecom Italia owned 81% of TIM (short for Telecom Italia Mobile) Hellas at the time. Semler figured, a bit naively, that worst-case the Italian parent would buy out the rest of the minority investors at a modest premium. Instead, in April 2005 Texas Pacific and Арах announced a definitive agreement to buy Telecom Italia"s stake for $22 a share (a 3% premium to previous day trading), valuing the company"s stock at $1.9 billion.
While the offer would have handed Semler a small profit, he felt it was a low-ball by as much as $10 a share, compared with what cell firms were trading for on the Continent. In August 2005, shortly before minority shareholders were set to get bought out, Semler asked TIM Hellas" TPG-Apax-controlled board to appoint an independent fairness committee to assess the price.
The board, in a proxy statement filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, declared the merger price fair. After all, it had gotten a fairness opinion from what it described as "independent investment bank" Morgan Stanley-a firm that had earned $40 million from Texas Pacific and Арах the previous two years. The board also informed minority investors that it would not follow the U. S. practice of establishing a special committee to assess the fairness of the deal: "Greek law does not provide appraisal rights in connection with the merger," it said.
The proxy also noted that an unnamed "potential investor"-later revealed to be Egyptian telecom mogul Naguib Sawiris - had expressed interest in putting in a competing bid that might have resulted in an offer of $26 a share. However, the proxy referred to Sawiris" bid as "highly conditional," and TIM Hellas" owners rejected it.
Another wrinkle: TIM Hellas later told the SEC that TPG and Арах had over the past two years offered Telecom Italia as much as 20 euros a share (now worth $29) for TIM Hellas but were rebuffed. The buyers say Telecom Italia accepted the lower offers because TlM"s fortunes were declining. Semler is arguing that the missing link is a grab bag of goodies, like handsets, that Telecom Italia is selling to TIM Hellas.
Semler was infuriated further when he learned that TPG and Арах bought out Q-Telecom, Greeces fourth-largest cell carrier, for 14.3 times annualized trailing earnings. That means shareholders of Q-Te\ecom - would receive 2.8 times the multiple their shell company, Troy, was paying TIM Hellas investors. The new owners quickly merged TIM Hellas with Q-Telecom and revamped management and marketing. Then, in February, they flipped the company to Sawiris for $4.4 billion, making an 80% profit on TIM Hellas in 20 months. Their adviser on the deal: Morgan Stanley. Now both Арах and TPG are considering buying a stake in Sawiris firm, the Wall Street Journal reported in October. Sawiris declines comment.
Text 3
THE FUNDS
AMERICAN CENTURY ULTRA IS STRUGgling. During the go-go 1990s, the flagship fund of American Century Investments was synonymous with stellar growth stocks. Ultra, along with companions Select and Growth, ran up annual returns of 20% to 40% by owning hot stocks like MCI WorldCom and Lucent Technologies. Then came the end of the bubble. Ultra, like most funds chasing big growth stocks, crashed.
There are two things that a money management firm can do when it finds itself in this predicament. One is to stick to its strategy, inevitably losing assets as customers desert it near the bottom but at least positioning itself to participate in the rebound. The other is to panic and change direction. Ultra panicked.
After riding tech stocks down, this fund sold them and switched to things that looked safer. Stocks in cement, insurance and restaurants replaced former tech highfliers.
Do we need to tell you what happened to the portfolio in the bull market that began five years ago? It lagged, badly. Ultra"s 10.7% average annual return in the five years through September compares with 15.5% for the S&P 500 and 14.1% for Ultra"s peers, funds of large-cap growth stocks. If Ultra, one of the half-dozen best-performing funds of the 1990s with assets of more than $10 billion, is still a growth portfolio, it sure hasn"t acted like one. In the latest FORBES ratings, it gets a mere D in up markets. The rest, all growth funds, scored an A or an A+.
So investors have yanked an estimated $11.6 billion from Ultra-and $16 billion overall from American Century stock and bond funds-since the beginning of last year. Ultra"s three comanagers have left, along with the fund firm"s chief executive and a spate of other high officials. Ultra is under new managers, trying ever so hard for a comeback, but their task is not easy.
Just as matters seemed they couldn"t get worse, this past spring an Iowa man, seeking to compel American Century to buy the small-cap stocks he liked, was arrested after allegedly sending a pipe bomb to a money manager at the firm"s Kansas City headquarters.
The most telling admission that Ultra and its fund family have lost their way is the recent decision to impose sales charges of up to 5.75% on another 12 of American Century"s 84 funds, including Ultra, bringing the total number of its load funds to 39. (Current no-load customers are grandfathered in) Since Ultra"s S record doesn"t attract investors, perhaps stockbrokers can be bribed to do the work.
Even that won"t be an easy sell, since financial advisers compensated by sales fees (loads and 12b-1 s) have good fund families to choose from. "Right now, they simply don"t have a very good fund lineup," says Jeffery D. Chaddock, an adviser with Ameriprise in Columbus, Ohio, which is in the sales fee camp. "I would choose Fidelity or American Funds before American Century. Both have better consistency and ratings."
No one should have any illusion that it"s possible to enjoy the performance of a high-risk growth fund in a bull market without suffering some pain in the bear market that follows. Funds that get A or A+ grades from FORBES for bull markets tend to deliver an F in bear markets. But hang on for a long time, through bull - and bear-market cycles, and you can do well with a risky fund.
Seligman Communications & Information is a good example of the breed. We give this high-tech portfolio an A+ for up-market performance and an F for down markets. It didn"t miss out in the post-2002 bull market, racking up a 22.1% annual return. Over the past 15 years it has averaged a 16.9% return, beating the S&P500"sll%.
Once upon a time the American Century (formerly Twentieth Century) fund family had a clearer sense of purpose. Founder James E. Stowers Jr. looked for companies with positive earnings momentum. In the early 1970s he wrote a computer program that narrowed a list of 16,000 stocks to 1,000, giving his analysts a starting point for final picks. He launched Ultra in 1981, and it was a hit as the market climbed out of a Jimmy Carter-era funk. In early 2000, before the tech crash, the fund had amassed assets of $43 billion. Assets are down to $10.7 billion now. At 83, Stowers remains on the American Century board but is detached from the management of the company he started and spends most of his time on philanthropy.
Last year Bruce Wimberly, who had comanaged Ultra for ten years, departed, ostensibly because he wanted more time with his family. Later Gerard Sullivan, comanager since 2001, and Wade Slome, comanager since 2002, left Ultra as well, although Sullivan is still with American Century.
In came Thomas Telford in June 2006. Previously Telford, 40, a strapping fellow who coaches kids" flag football and soccer, ran New Opportunities II, an American Century small-cap growth fund with a decent record. Another manager, Stephen Lurito, American Century"s new chief investment officer for U. S. growth equity, joined Ultra this past August.
This year"s return of 16.7% is 2.6 points above a rejuvenating large-cap growth category. But Morningstar analyst Christopher Davis remains unconvinced. Telford"s initial showing is too short to be meaningful, he believes. He also worries about an "experience drain," with all the talent leaving; Morningstar gives Ultra only two stars. Davis says he wouldn"t recommend any of American Century"s large growth funds now.
Telford has a quarter of assets in manufacturing, energy and materials, not too far behind info tech and telecom, at 35%.
Un-WorldCom-like names such as Emerson Electric, PepsiCo and United Technologies are now prominent among Ultra"s holdings. While these have decent earnings growth rates, they are hardly explosive.
Turnover has increased to 80%, from 33% in 2005 under Wimberly. Telford says a growth stock has a finite life, and he looks to get it at the sweet spot in its
cycle. "The last thing I want is a growth stock that"s going to stagnate or go down for two years," he says. Telford bought Network Appliance in May at $38 and, after it disappointed, sold at $29 in August. He sold Ultra"s Amazon position after the fund held it for many years (Amazon"s price has since increased threefold) and greatly trimmed Ebay.
Telford has made some good calls, too. Gamemaker Nintendo has more than doubled since he began buying in December 2006. Apple, Ultra"s third-largest holding (2.8% of the portfolio), is ahead 120% in 2007, while GPS-maker Garmin is up 116%. Research In Motion, a new addition in May at $53, is now at $121.
American Century last year hired cyclist Lance Armstrong as a pitchman, part of a multimillion-dollar brand-building campaign. If the fund vendor can"t deliver endurance in its performance records, it can at least offer up a guy who has.
Текст 1
По моему мнению
Джерри Тейлор и Питер ван Дорен, старшие преподаватели в Институте като.
Субсидии
Почему консерваторы должны присоединиться к кампании левых против ядерной энергии.
Когда данная вещь появляется в политике, мы не всегда соглашаемся с Бонни Рэиттом или Грэме Нэшем. Но теперь, когда они проводят кампанию против новых ядерных установок, они стали нашими друзьями. Рэитт, Нэш, Девочки Индиго и другие вокальные рокеры хватаются за условие в законодательстве Сената, которое предоставило бы им как они называют: "в дорогие ссуды в широком масштабе, которые гарантирует потенциально действительный чек без обозначения суммы от налогоплательщиков "для строительства атомной электростанции".