Simulate two security daily returns with stochastic volatility and jumps . Allow for potential correlation of the jumps and have a parameter that can set that correlation to high or low . Calculate the correlation of the two assets and the value at risk for this portfolio . How does correlation change when jump correlation increases? How does value at risk change?
God, give me grace to accept with serenitythe things that cannot be changed,Courage to change the thingswhich should be changed,and the Wisdom to distinguishthe one from the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer
Beijing (CNN) -- In a historic climate change deal, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced both countries will curb their greenhouse gas emissions over the next two decades. Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year. "As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," Obama said Wednesday in a joint news conference with Xi. The announcement marks the first time China has agreed to peak its carbon emissions, according to the White House. Xi is calling for "an energy revolution" that would include broad economic reforms addressing air pollution. Obama-GOP truce at risk over energy? Obama: 'This is a major milestone' Senator: Climate change isn't settled China and Japan in 'renormalization' phase White House, China agree on climate change Game changer for global talks? Obama, who was in Beijing for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, said he hopes the deal will spur other nations to tackle climate change. "We hope to encourage all major economies to be ambitious -- all countries, developing and developed -- to work across some of the old divides, so we can conclude a strong global climate agreement next year," Obama said. Xi said both sides were committed to working toward the goals before the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris next year. Colorful economic summit ends with rare news conference in Beijing No more excuses The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions said the joint announcement is "an extremely hopeful sign" and will help get other countries on board. "For too long it's been too easy for both the U.S. and China to hide behind one another," said the center's president, Bob Perciasepe. "People on both sides pointed to weak action abroad to delay action at home. This announcement hopefully puts those excuses behind us. We'll only avert the worst risks of climate change by acting together." The announcement could put climate change back on the G20 agenda, said researcher David Holmes of Monash University in Australia. "The announcement may mean climate will have to be higher on the G20 agenda, despite host nation Australia trying to keep it off altogether," Holmes said. "As an economic meeting, it cannot afford to ignore the restructuring of energy markets and productive capacity that will be needed to accommodate these very ambitious cuts." The goals laid out by Obama and Xi were not as ambitious as some hoped, said Lo Sze Ping, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund Beijing. But "what's important is that both these two large emitters are taking the responsibility to act and work together to resolve the problem, not the numbers or targets themselves," he said. US-China relations: Can teens succeed where presidents have failed? Obama and Putin meet in Beijing See leaders' awkward photo op Challenges in Washington The White House said the ultimate target is to "achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80% by 2050." A senior Obama administration official said the goals are "ambitious and achievable" -- but U.S. domestic politics could be a challenge. The official said "leading climate deniers" in the Republican party might try to stop the initiative. The official hinted that Obama could act alone if necessary. "Congress may try to stop us, but we believe that with control of Congress changing hands we can proceed with the authority we already have," the official said. "This is really the crusade of a narrow group of people who are politically motivated and have made this a cause celebre, but we believe we will be successful." The Obama administration hopes to sell the plan back home by touting the anticipated savings on energy costs. The plan offers initiatives and incentives to develop more solar and wind power in both countries, the official said. "Consumers and businesses will save literally billions of dollars," a senior administration official said. But the Senate's top Republican said the climate change deal will hurt the U.S. economy. "Our economy can't take the President's ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners," Sen. Mitch McConnell said in a statement. "This unrealistic plan, that the President would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs." 24 hours with President Obama in China China's next steps China has agreed to provide another 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030. That amount of zero-emission output exceeds all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and is close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States. A senior Obama administration official said that historically, the United States and China have often been seen as antagonists, so the climate change deal "should send a powerful message," and "will usher in a new day, where the U.S. and China can work as partners." Clearing the air We have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change. President Obama During Obama's visit to Beijing, the Chinese government closed factories and gave employees time off to reduce car traffic and emissions in Beijing. The reduction of smog and the appearance of blue skies was noted by media throughout the APEC summit. Top Senate Republicans slam climate deal More agreements made As well as the historic climate change deal, Obama and Xi also agreed on the importance of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, cybersecurity, strengthening military relations and increasing trade. "China is firmly committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," Xi said. Both sides also agreed to an extension of the validity of short- term business and tourist visas from one to 10 years, and of student visas from one year to five years. "This arrangement will facilitate the travel of millions of U.S. and Chinese citizens, furthering the trade, cultural, and people-to-people ties that form the foundation of our bilateral relationship," the White House said.
Risk-Averse Culture Infects U.S. Workers, Entrepreneurs Americans have long taken pride on their willingness to bet it all on a dream. But that risk-taking spirit appears to be fading. Three long-running trends suggest the U.S. economy has turned soft on risk: Companies add jobs more slowly, even in good times. Investors put less money into new ventures. And, more broadly, Americans start fewer businesses and are less inclined to change jobs or move for new opportunities. The changes reflect broader, more permanent shifts, including an aging population and the new dominance of large corporations in many industries. They also may help explain the increasingly sluggish economic recoveries after the past three recessions, experts said. 'The U.S. has succeeded in part because of its dynamism, its high pace of job creation and destruction, and its high pace of churning of workers,' said John Haltiwanger, a University of Maryland economist who has studied the decline in American entrepreneurship. 'The pessimistic view is we've lost our mojo.' Companies that gamble on new ideas are more likely to fail, but also more likely to hit it big. Entrepreneurs face long odds, but those that achieve success create jobs for many others. As important, say economists, are small acts of risk-taking: workers who quit their jobs to find better ones, companies that expand payrolls and families that move from sluggish economic regions to ones with low unemployment rates. Multiplied across the U.S. economy, these acts of faith and ambition help speed money, talent and resources to where they are needed. Of course, too much risk-taking can be dangerous, as the financial crisis showed. And with the stock market soaring, some types of risk are displaying signs of a strong postcrisis rebound. Indeed, the Federal Reserve said it was watching for signs that easy-money policies are leading investors to take excessive risks. But a broad cross section of U.S. economists, from a range of academic disciplines and political persuasions, agree that a specific and necessary kind of risk-taking is on the decline. Historically, risk-taking that supports high rates of churn─lots of hiring and firing, company formation and destruction─gives economies more flexibility to adapt to changing markets. Maxim Schillebeeckx is the kind of ambitious young American who has long propelled the U.S. economy. A 28-year-old doctoral student in genetics at Washington University in St. Louis, Mr. Schillebeeckx also has a graduate degree in economics. He helped create a student-led consulting firm to provide scientific advice to local startups. But despite his enthusiasm for entrepreneurship and his experience in startups, Mr. Schillebeeckx said he planned to look for the safety of work in consulting or private equity, rather than launch his own company or work for a new venture. 'I'm pretty risk averse, personally,' Mr. Schillebeeckx said. 'On the entrepreneurial side, you have to be willing to jump off the deep end.' Mr. Haltiwanger and other economists said this decline in risk-taking─both by companies and individuals─has coincided with a broader slowing of the U.S. economy, particularly for new jobs. In the eight recessions from the end of World War II through the end of the 1980s, it took the U.S. a little more than 20 months, on average, for employment to return to its prerecession peak. But after the relatively shallow recession of the early 1990s, it took 32 months for payrolls to rebound fully. After the even milder recession of 2001, it took four years. Today, nearly four years after the end of the last recession, employment has yet to reach its precrisis peak. Economists have proposed various explanations for the series of slower rebounds, including the rise of outsourcing and automation that have allowed companies to produce more with fewer workers. Pockets of the U.S. economy still burn with a risk-taking spirit. Google, Apple and Facebook reshaped the technology sector, creating new categories of products and services. Energy companies and their investors bet billions of dollars on new drilling techniques that have unlocked new reserves of domestic oil and natural gas. Such coastal cities as San Francisco and Boston, and college towns like Boulder, Colo., and Austin, Texas, boast vibrant communities of entrepreneurs and investors. But risk-taking seems more concentrated than years past, by industry and by region, said Dane Stangler, director of research and policy at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City, Mo., nonprofit that studies entrepreneurship. 'We absolutely see geographic divergence,' he said. 'We've got these hotbeds of startups, but you just don't see the same level of activity in other areas of the country.' That is a problem for regions left behind. Cities with high levels of entrepreneurial activity had significantly better job growth than those that relied more heavily on existing businesses, according to findings by Harvard economist Edward Glaeser and two colleagues that were published last year. Entrepreneurship is a numbers game that draws a handful of winners from a crowd of participants, Mr. Haltiwanger said. He and other researchers have found that a relatively small number of fast-growing companies create a disproportionate number of new jobs. But such companies are almost impossible to identify ahead of time. Little about Sam Walton's Bentonville, Ark., five-and-dime store suggested Wal-Mart would one day become the world's leading retail chain. Little about Jeff Bezos's online bookstore suggested Amazon's future as the Web's biggest commercial hub. The problem with fewer Americans starting businesses is that there are fewer chances for the next Amazon or Wal-Mart─or even the successful small- or medium-size business. 'It just means that there are fewer new companies that are creating jobs, fewer new companies that are competing for workers,' said Lina Khan, an economist who has studied the decline in entrepreneurship for the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank. 'Traditionally being able to start your own business has been a path to upward mobility.' Fewer Americans are choosing that path. In 1982, new companies─those in business less than five years─made up roughly half of all U.S. businesses, according to census data. By 2011, they accounted for just over a third. Over the same period, the share of the labor force working at new companies fell to 11% from more than 20%. Both trends predate the recession and have continued in the recovery. Investors, meanwhile, appear to be losing enthusiasm for startups. Total venture capital invested in the U.S. fell nearly 10% last year and has yet to return to its prerecession peak, said PricewaterhouseCoopers. The share of capital going to new business ventures has fallen even faster, PricewaterhouseCoopers data show, and is more concentrated: Silicon Valley took 40% of venture funding in 2012, up from about 30% in the late 1990s. The decline in risk-taking is reflected in U.S. migration: Americans move less often, with rates of interstate migration falling for at least 20 years, according to census data. They also have less workplace wanderlust: 53% of adults last year held the same job for at least five years, up from 46% in 1996, according to the Labor Department. The share of workers who voluntarily left their jobs in a given year plummeted to 16.1% in 2009 from 25.2% in 2006 and remains well below prerecession levels, Labor Department data show. Economists at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors found the falling rate of interstate migration over the long-term correlated strongly with the decline in job changes. In other words, Fed researchers said, people are moving less because they are changing jobs less. Recent declines in moving may be tied to the collapse of the housing market, which left millions of homeowners owing more than their homes were worth, making it harder to relocate. But the longer trend predated the latest housing bust. Researchers have proposed such explanations as changing demographics and two-income households, which could make it harder for families to move. Companies, too, are taking fewer risks. Rather than expanding payrolls, for example, they are keeping more cash on hand─5.7% of their assets at the end of 2012, up from under 3% three decades earlier, said the Federal Reserve, a rise that accelerated after the recession. Workers are hired more slowly, particularly at newer companies, Labor Department data show. Andy Gugar opened Mercado's restaurant in Tyler, Texas, in 1987, with a second location a year later. By the early 2000s, the chain, known as Posados Café, had a dozen locations in Texas and Louisiana. Since then, expansion has slowed. The chain now has 16 locations and brings in about $38 million per year in sales. Scott Nordon, Posados's chief operating officer, said the chain might one day reach 20 or 25 restaurants but was in no rush. 'We don't want to have 100 stores,' he said. 'There's no pressure for us to grow. If we see an opportunity, guess what, we're going to take advantage of it. But if it doesn't, we're content.' The conservative strategy predates the recession, Mr. Nordon said, but the financial crisis and the current weak economy have reinforced the view. The company plans to pay off debts over the next four years and will fund any expansion with cash. 'Longevity is the name of the game,' he said. Economists aren't sure what is behind the decline in risk-taking. Among the possible explanations are the rising cost of health care, which makes it riskier to quit a job and more expensive to hire more employees; increased state and local licensing requirements that serve as barriers to newcomers─one recent study found that roughly 29% of U.S. employees required a government license or certificate in 2008, up from less than 5% in the 1950s; and immigration rules that deter would-be entrepreneurs from other countries. An aging population is also cited. Young people are more prone to start companies or move for jobs. But the slowdown in risk-taking began before the baby boom generation began to retire. And even younger workers change jobs less often. One barrier for prospective entrepreneurs may be the growing dominance of large corporations in nearly every industry, which make it tough for new ventures to gain a foothold. A small bookstore no longer needs just a better selection or a friendlier staff than the crosstown competition─it also has to compete with national chains and, increasingly, such Internet retailers as Amazon. For the first time since such records have been kept, the Census found in 2008 that more Americans worked for big businesses─those with at least 500 workers─than small ones. The trend has continued since. The work of running family businesses has also scared off younger generations, said Henry Hutcheson, president of Family Business USA, which advises these businesses. 'The lure and ease of joining a blue chip firm, where you get a good job and a decent salary, just seems to be overwhelming,' he said. 'People are saying, 'I can go take over my dad's garden center and I can go run this thing and work seven days a week and be there from dawn until dusk, or I can go manage a Home Depot and they're going to pay me $150,000 and I'll get weekends and vacation.' ' Tony Raney faced that choice. Until a year ago, Mr. Raney worked for the small chain of appliance stores his family operates in Wilkesboro, N.C. After watching his stepfather work nights and weekends, Mr. Raney had second thoughts, especially since national chains offered lower prices. 'It's a lot riskier to be an independent business owner,' he said. 'Big business is out to get you.' A year ago, Mr. Raney left the family business for a data-entry job at a national appraisal firm. 'I feel safer,' he said. 'I have no desire to show up and be the head of the corporation. I just want to show up and do the job.'
To Celebrate Snowden's Russian Asylum Request, Here Is Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" Speech Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/12/2013 10:53 -0400 It is surprising how things change diametrically in 30 short years... From the Ronald Reagan address to the National Association of Evangelicals, March 8, 1983. It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable “Screwtape Letters,” wrote: “The greatest evil is not done now…in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is…not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result, but it is conceived and ordered; moved, seconded, carried and minuted in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Well, because these “quiet men” do not “raise their voices,” because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they’re always making “their final territorial demand,” some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom. So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority... I urge you to beware the temptation of pride–the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire , to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil. ... I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last–last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. Yes, change your world. One of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine, said, “We have it within our power to begin the world over again.” We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself. Isn't it ironic that 30 years later, those who refuse to " remove themselves from the struggle between right and wrong, between good and evil " and those " who speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority " are forced to seek asylum in... the Evil Empire ? Average: 4.421055 Your rating: None Average: 4.4 ( 19 votes) Tweet !-- - advertisements - -- - advertisemen Login or register to post comments 9725 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend Similar Articles You Might Enjoy: Snowden Requests Russian Political Asylum Snowden Withdraws Russia Asylum Request; Nine Countries Deny Application Ronald Reagan's 1981 Christmas Address Paul Farrell Explains Why America Needs An "Evil Plan" In Advance Of The Next Revolution Presenting The "Evil Empire's" Projected Debt
You can't change your entire life. You can only change your next action. 你不能改变你的整个生活 你只能改变你的下一个行动 You can't change a relationship with a loved one. You can only change your next interaction. 你不能改变与你相爱的人的关系 你只能改善你的下一次的交流 You can't change your entire job. You can only change your next task. 你不能改变你的整个工作 你只能更好的完成下一个任务 You can't change your body composition. You can only change your next meal. 你不能改变身体的构成 你只能关注你的饮食 You can't change your fitness level. You can only start moving. 你不能改变身体健康状况的水平 你只能马上开始行动 You can't declutter your entire life. You can only get choose to get rid of one thing, right now. 你不能理清你全部的生活 你只能马上选择一件物品来处理 You can't eliminate your entire debt. You can only make one payment, or buy one less unnecessary item. 你不能清偿你所有的欠贷 你只能尽少的支付或者少买些不必要的东西 You can't change the past, or control the future. You can only change what you're doing right now. 你不能改变过去也不能控制未来 你只能更好的把握好现在做的事 You can't change everything. You can only change one, small thing. And that's all it takes. 你不能改变所有一切 你只能一次改变一点小事 这也是成功的关键所在
标签: change经管大学堂：名校名师名课
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
