lundi 23 avril 2012

Écologie ?


Le cloud computing pollue-t-il la planète ?

mercredi 18 avril 2012 à 09h56
L’informatique dématérialisée ne l’est jamais vraiment : si vos données sont stockées en ligne via le «cloud computing», elles le sont dans des «data centers» géants et énergivores. Greenpeace publie une étude assassine sur le sujet. Mis en cause, Apple a dévoilé une partie de son jeu… Une opération qui ne trompe personne, rétorque Greenpeace.
Amazon, Apple et Microsoft ont «largement recours aux énergies sales» pour leurs services dématérialisés de type cloud computing (stockage de données en ligne), a affirmé mardi Greenpeace, qui a en revanche distribué des bons points à Facebook, Google et Yahoo!.
 
L'organisation écologique a publié mardi un rapport dans lequel elle note les comportements des géants des nouvelles technologies dans la gestion de l'informatique dématérialisée, ces services permettant aux internautes de stocker leurs données ou programmes en ligne.
 
 
Si ces données ne sont plus stockées sur les ordinateurs ou smartphones des particuliers, elles le sont dans des «data centers qui abritent des milliers d'ordinateurs stockant et gérant toutes les données prêtes-à-consommer que nous accumulons», note Greenpeace dans son rapport. Or, ces centres de données «consomment une très grande quantité d'électricité : l'équivalent d'environ 250.000 foyers européens pour certains d'entre eux», poursuit le rapport.
 

«On adore nos iPhone mais ils ne doivent pas rendre les choses plus difficiles pour la planète»

 
Amazon, Apple et Microsoft, trois entreprises américaines, «n'accordent pas suffisamment d'attention à la provenance de l'électricité qu'elles consomment et continuent d'avoir largement recours aux énergies sales pour alimenter» ces services dématérialisés, affirme Greenpeace.
 
«Il ne s'agit pas de clouer (ces entreprises) au pilori, nous essayons de les pousser dans la bonne direction, a expliqué Casey Harrell, un responsable de Greenpeace. On adore nos iPhone, ils nous facilitent la vie, mais ils ne doivent pas rendre les choses plus difficiles pour la planète.»
 
Yahoo! et Google continuent en revanche «de montrer l'exemple», tandis que Facebook «est désormais l'ami des énergies renouvelables», selon le rapport.
 

Cloud computing et environnement : le cas Apple

 
Apple a aussitôt réagi. Via un communiqué cité par le New York Times, la firme à la pomme a précisé que le centre de données évoqué par l’organisation environnementale consommerait environ 20 millions de watts en charge maximale, «nettement moins que l’estimation de Greenpeace, qui est de 100 millions de watts».
 
Le défenseur de la nature souligne néanmoins que l’investissement consenti par Apple pour ce data center, soit 1 milliard de dollars sur 10 ans, aurait dû, selon les prix du marché, lui permettre d’atteindre 100 millions de watts (d’où son estimation). «Apple est certes connu pour fabriquer des appareils plus coûteux que les autres, mais si son investissement de 1 milliard de dollars ne génère que 20 millions de watts en énergie, cela donnerait une dimension vraiment nouvelle au fameux Apple premium», ironise Greenpeace.
 
Et de conclure : «Tout en appréciant la tentative d’Apple de fournir davantage de détails sur son iData Center de Caroline du Nord, il ne semble pas qu’ils aient dévoilé la totalité de leurs informations. Au contraire, ils paraissent chercher à ne fournir qu’une sélection d’informations afin de minimiser leur empreinte écologique sale
 
Le dossier du cloud computing et de son impact sur l’environnement n’est décidément pas clos.
 
V.D., avec Belga

samedi 14 avril 2012

60 million smartphones and cell phones each year


April 9, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EDT

What it really costs when you lose your smartphone


Jeanette Pavini
By Jeanette Pavini



SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Say you just lost your wallet with $40 cash in it. You’d feel bad, right? There’s the inconvenience of canceling cards, getting a new driver’s license, etc. But what if you lost your wallet with $900 in cash in it, plus your address book and your bank passwords? That’s what it’s like when you lose your smartphone.
Now that really hurts.
How much does it cost to lose a smartphone? One of our readers found out the hard way. Her iPhone was stolen while she was on public transit. She didn’t have phone insurance, her renter’s insurance didn’t cover the loss and she was told if she canceled her phone contract, she would be liable for a hefty early termination fee. In the end, she paid a small fortune and learned a big lesson.
Some 60 million smartphones and cell phones are lost, stolen or damaged each year, according to Asurion, a provider of cell-phone insurance.
Your total cost will depend on your carrier, what kind of device you have and whether you’re willing to settle for a reconditioned, used device or want a new smartphone.
If you lose your top-of-the-line iPhone, say, and want to replace it with the same device — and you aren’t eligible for an upgrade anytime soon — you could pay as much as $849 for the device alone.
Here’s a breakdown, based on the major carriers:
Sprint: If you have insurance through Sprint, you pay the deductible of $100 for smartphones and will receive a replacement phone – probably a used, refurbished phone, not a new one — without having to extend your contract. If you don’t have insurance, you can buy a used device or a new one, and you will not have to purchase a new contract. I found a certified pre-owned Blackberry Curve 3G for $79.99 on the Sprint website.
Insurance offered through Sprint includes a free application with a device locator, data backup and lock-and-wipe capabilities. Sprint’s policy is to not re-activate a phone that has been reported lost or stolen unless they are able to verify proper ownership.
Verizon: With insurance through Verizon, you can pay your deductible of up to $199 and get another smartphone — again, it won’t be a new phone — without having to sign a new contract. If you don’t have insurance and you want to stay under your current contract, you will have to buy a new or refurbished smartphone. Verizon sells refurbished phones for $300 to $500. The company offers a free back-up-assistant app that gives customers access to the contact information stored on their phone. If you have the company’s insurance, you’ll be able to locate your phone on a map, send a phone alarm, remotely lock your phone to secure your data or remotely wipe your contacts out. If you put your phone on the company’s “lost or stolen” list, Verizon won’t activate the phone if someone brings it into a store.
AT&T declined to answer specific questions and referred us to their website. AT&T, on its website, advises customers to report a lost or stolen phone and suspend their service, buy a new device and then reactivate service. Once suspended, your wireless service cannot be used to make or receive calls, forward calls, retrieve voicemail, or access data services. Suspending your wireless service does not release your wireless phone number, and you will be charged the monthly recurring fee while service is in a voluntary suspended status.
Keep these tips in mind if your smartphone goes missing:
  1. Many new smartphones, including the iPhone, come with a “find my phone” application that allows you to locate the device, regardless of your carrier or insurance. See whether your device has this option and activate it.
  2. Your smartphone insurance likely does not cover a brand-new replacement device. You’ll get a reconditioned phone and it may not be identical to the one you lost.
  3. Keep track of when you are due for an upgrade on your carrier contract. You might be able to use an old phone until you qualify for the new replacement smartphone at a discounted rate.
  4. Whenever you buy a new smartphone, hold on to your old device. If the new one is lost or stolen, that old iPhone or Blackberry could come in handy.
  5. No matter which carrier you use, treat your phone as stolen, even if you think it’s only misplaced. It’s not just a phone; it likely also contains important personal information, and phone and email contacts.
  6. If someone makes unauthorized long-distance calls, don’t believe it just because the carrier says it. You may not be liable for these charges, in fact — probably are not, even if your carrier says you are until the phone is reported lost or stolen. For example in California, the Public Utilities Commission has a law stating that a “telephone bill may only contain charges for products or services, the purchase of which the subscriber has authorized.” California consumers are not liable for unauthorized charges made from their stolen cell phones.
  7. Beware buying smartphones from third-party sellers or from private parties via classifieds like Craigslist. These phones might be stolen or damaged and you’ll have no recourse against the seller.

lundi 9 avril 2012

Warning !!!!! Les assurances de groupe et les épargnes-pension dans le collimateur ...


08:35 - 06 avril 2012 par François Mathieu

Faut-il se précipiter pour acheter de l'immobilier?


Le marché immobilier est à la croisée des chemins. Les risques s’accroissent et les experts pointent une possible surévaluation du marché. D’un autre côté, les taux sont faibles et les salaires restent globalement à niveau. Comment résoudre l’équation?
Rarement la confusion aura autant régné sur le marché immobilier. D’un côté, après des années de croissance soutenue des prix du marché résidentiel – un doublement en 10 ans -, les annonces d’une possible surévaluation se multiplient. Les études de la BNB, du FMI, de l’OCDE et plus récemment de The Economist, sur la base desdites études,  ont pointé le niveau des prix a priori trop élevé du marché immobilier belge. De 15 à 20 % en moyenne.
D’un autre côté,  les faibles taux d’intérêt dopent la capacité de financement des ménages belges. Et le niveau des salaires se maintient. "C’est vrai que le faiblesse de la conjoncture devrait mettre les salaires sous pression mais c’est un peu vite oublier que le marché de l’emploi est tout à fait inefficient en Belgique", estime Etienne de Callataÿ, économiste à la Banque Degroof. "Le chômage y est en effet installé de manière plutôt structurelle: les compétences entres inactifs et actifs sont à ce point différentes qu’il ne peut pas vraiment y avoir de compétition sur les salaires." Ces deux facteurs seraient donc plutôt favorables au marché immobilier.

Aînés moins nantis

Alors, faut-il vite acheter de l’immobilier? "La précipitation est mauvaise conseillère, surtout pour des dépenses d’une telle envergure", rappelle d’emblée Etienne de Callataÿ. "D’autant plus que je ne suis pas franchement favorable à l’achat immobilier à titre d’investissement pour le moment. D’abord, la faiblesse des taux actuelle pourrait n’être que temporaire si les risques inhérents aux dettes souveraines européennes pointent à nouveau le bout du nez. Ensuite, on peut pointer le contexte fiscal parmi les facteurs de risque. Il est tout de même fort probable que  la fiscalité immobilière soit revue à la hausse prochainement. Cela a d’ailleurs été à l’ordre du jour plusieurs fois ces dernières années. Cela semblerait assez légitime au vu de la taxation élevée des revenus du travail", poursuit l’économiste.
Lequel pointe également l’essoufflement de la capacité des seniors à aider leurs enfants. "On peut se référer à cet égard à l’exemple du Japon. Depuis peu, on constate que le peuple japonais a tendance à désépargner.  Ce phénomène s’explique en grande partie par la baisse du niveau d’épargne du côté des personnes âgées, lesquelles utilisent leurs deniers pour maintenir leur train de vie." Si les aînés peuvent moins subsidier l’achat immobilier de leurs enfants, il est évident que cela aura un impact négatif sur les prix du marché immobilier, en raison de la baisse de leur capacité de financement. 

L’apport d’épargne

Julien Manceaux, économiste chez ING, abonde également dans ce sens. "On oublie un peu vite que les apports d’épargne - des parents -  et la faiblesse des taux, notamment, ont permis aux candidats à l’achat de maintenir leur capacité de financement. Depuis 2004, l’apport externe d’épargne au financement a doublé, de 20 à 40%. C’est énorme, et très révélateur de la capacité de financement des Belges. On a un peu l’impression que leur épargne est un puits sans fonds mais cela ne peut pas durer. Un essoufflement des apports d’épargne me semble inéluctable en raison du vieillissement de la population et des besoins plus importants d’argent qui en découlent. "
Etienne de Callataÿ pointe un autre risque pouvant peser sur la capacité de financement des ménages: l’obligation éventuelle de transformer les capitaux perçus dans le cadre de formules d’épargne complémentaire. "Actuellement, les  bénéficiaires d’assurances de groupe ou d’épargnes-pension  ont le choix : soit ils prennent leur capital soit ils optent pour la rente. Mais si le gouvernement venait à supprimer la possibilité de prendre le capital d’un bloc, comme cela se fait déjà dans pas mal de pays européens, et à rendre la rente obligatoire, cela pourrait avoir un impact négatif sur l’apport d’épargne aux jeunes. D’autant que la rente s’éteint à la mort de leurs bénéficiaires… "

Et du côté des conditions de financement?

L’économiste d’ING est également très prudent quand aux conditions de financement. Depuis quelques années, les candidats à l’achat ont atteint les limites de ce qu’ils peuvent emprunter, ou presque, par rapport à leurs salaires. L’allongement de la durée des crédits pourrait être une façon d’augmenter artificiellement la capacité d’emprunt de ménages mais "les banques elles-mêmes ne peuvent plus se refinancer à des durées de 30 à 40 ans. Dans ce contexte, il leur est impossible d’accepter des crédits d’une telle durée", explique Julien Manceaux. De toute façon, avec les nouvelles normes comptables (Bâle III), les banques vont devoir soigner leurs ratios de liquidité, ce qui passera par une diminution des actifs plus risqués, tels les crédits hypothécaires de longue durée.
En bref
Points favorables au marché immobilier
  • Faible pression sur les salaires (merci au papy-boom)  = maintien de la capacité de financement
  • Hausse importante des taux peu probable à court terme
  • Valeur refuge dans un contexte de marchés boursiers chahutés

Points défavorables au marché immobilier
  • Fiscalité (inéluctablement?) plus défavorable à l’avenir (dès 2014 ?)
  • Apports d’épargne en baisse
  • Allongement de la durée des crédits quasi impossible (et pas souhaitable)
  • Hausse des taux à moyen terme

Conclusion : plutôt " NON "

lundi 2 avril 2012

Buy vs Sell







April 2, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EDT

Two financial stocks to sell and two to buy

Commentary: Stick with JPMorgan, Capital One; ditch AIG and Citi




By Jeff Reeves
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — I recently wrote a column about the rather frothy technology sector, offering up three overbought tech stocks and two that were still bargains. But another sector that investors are undoubtedly watching right now is the financial industry. With some of the biggest names in banking posting market-trouncing returns in 2012, traders could be getting ready to pull the trigger and take their profits off the table.
TRADING STRATEGIES: APRILSpring cleaning 


With a change of seasons, comes a chance to do a little portfolio maintenance. Do you sell in April and go away? Buy and hold? Move into seasonal stocks? Let MarketWatch’s experts help you freshen your investments.

• Balancing your portfolio for spring
• Two financial stocks to sell and two to buy
• 11 stocks to throw out during spring cleaning
• A not-so-pleasant spring for Europe
• Bringing some spring air into your portfolio 
• Should you sell in April?
• Clean up with perpetual dividend raisers
• A mutual fund review that doesn’t hurt
• There’s more to tech than Apple
• Johnson roots for an April pullback 

• Hammers: March boom to April bust   



Where the Buys Are in Bonds
Bond investors can still find attractive opportunities, says Tad Rivelle, CIO for Fixed Income at investment manager TCW.
Admittedly, in the short term, the upside may be limited for many banks. The breakneck run since Thanksgiving — about 30% for the diversified Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF XLF +0.54%  — hints you’re going to be pretty late to the train if you’re investing right now.
However, while there are some dogs with fleas that appear to be bid up simply through naïve optimism, I think a few very strong bank stocks would make excellent long-term buys and are worth holding onto — or buying during a pullback.
The biggest difference between the financial stocks to keep and the financial stocks to dump? Well, the losers are divesting assets and still on the defensive, while the winners are in growth mode and clearly focused on acquisitions or building shareholder value.
Here are two stocks to consider buying and two stocks to consider selling in the financial industry.
Financial Stock to Buy: JPMorgan
Jaime Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan ChaseJPM +0.68% , may not win a lot of popularity contests. But he sure knows how to run a bank.
JPMorgan has, in some respects, come out of the financial crisis an even better financial institution than when it went in. JPM stock has reclaimed the $45 mark — challenging levels not seen since 2007, while rival Citigroup C +0.11%  has a five-year return of -90%. JPMorgan Chase surpassed Bank of America BAC +0.42% last year as the largest U.S. bank by assets, thanks in part to Dimon’s fire-sale purchases of Bear Stearns and WaMu during the meltdown.
And with the recent approval from the Federal Reserve, JPMorgan has become a decent income play once again — with 30 cents paid quarterly for a 2.7% yield. That’s the best dividend yield among the biggest banks, and light years ahead of Citi and BofA, which pay a mere penny a quarter.
JPMorgan certainly has risks, as do all financial stocks going forward. Regulations such as the Volcker rule and higher capital requirements will affect earnings. Banks generally make profits on the difference between the rates they pay on deposits and the interest they charge on loans, and low rates mean that spread is squeezed very small right now. And let’s not forget the very real threat of another credit crisis if European sovereign debt woes continue to drag on.
But JPM has a healthy balance sheet and will outlast any short-term headwinds. When the economy inevitably recovers, this financial stock will be there to capitalize. Revenue is already above fiscal 2008 levels -- with earnings forecasts of $4.46 this fiscal year, after EPS of just 84 cents in fiscal 2008.
Be cautious, because the 34% run-up year-to-date gives me pause. But an entry around $40 a share seems like a bargain for long-term investors. Shares dipped below that mark briefly for a few periods in 2011, but never stayed there long.
Financial Stock to Sell: AIG
Whether it’s part of your portfolio or not, as a dutiful U.S. taxpayer, you technically already own one-time insurance giant American International Group AIG +2.97% , thanks to the TARP bailout. According to the U.S. Treasury and its regular TARP updates, you still do. About $37 billion of nearly $68 billion disbursed to AIG remains outstanding -- with almost $4 billion in losses already realized on Uncle Sam’s “investment.”
But forget the politics for a second, if you can. Let’s discuss the fact that investors who bought AIG around Thanksgiving have been rewarded with a 40% profit in this stock — almost triple the market.
So will the run continue? Fat chance.
Admittedly, in February, AIG reported a whopping $19.8 billion profit for its fourth quarter. But here’s the catch: Approximately $17.7 billion of that profit is just a trick of the spreadsheet due to tax benefits. Sad but true — bailout baby AIG is sticking it to taxpayers twice!
The “bargain” P/E of around 4 is a mirage, based on earnings that are not real.
Furthermore, AIG continues to hold stock offerings and divest assets to get out from under TARP — including the continued sale of assets in its Asia operations, primarily the AIA Group. The company is mortgaging its future to repay debts, and that’s not a growth plan.
AIG may find its way eventually, but you shouldn’t be part of the risky journey out from under TARP. After a 40% run in a bit more than four months, to me, it’s time to take profits off the table.
Financial Stock to Buy: Capital One
I have to give credit to bank analyst Philip van Doorn on this one. He pitched Capital One Financial COF -1.22%  as a great stock months ago, and it has tallied a nearly 30% gain year-to-date and continues to show momentum.
Philip’s reasons are shared across many financial stocks: Improving earnings and low valuation when it comes to price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios. Specifically, COF has posted improving year-over-year earnings in eight of the last nine quarterly reports, boasts a forward P/E of 8.1 based on fiscal 2013 numbers, and a price/book of 0.85. A company that is still priced at just 85% of its book value even after this kind of run-up certainly is worth a look.
Of course, investors are very skeptical of bank earnings and valuations — so those reasons alone aren’t worth jumping in. But like JPMorgan, some bargain acquisitions have also been baked into Capital One lately that I think bode very well for future growth.
First, there’s the purchase of the U.S. operations of ING Group ING -1.42%  for roughly $9 billion. Some consumer groups gathered in opposition, but in February, the Federal Reserve gave its approval for the marriage. Then there’s the deal to acquire the U.S. credit card portfolio of HSBC Holdings HBC +0.98%  for $2.6 billion, approved just earlier this month.
Both of those areas are going to significantly add to Capital One’s footprint and growth potential.
Admittedly, the fact that Capital One did not ask for a dividend increase or share buyback after passing the recent round of stress tests is a bit of a downer. I do believe that tying up cash in buyouts will be a better long-term use of cash.
But either way, in terms of an investment, the “smart money” seems to agree. In fact, Jeffries & Co. just put a buy rating on the stock on March 19 — with a target of $72.
As always, beware of buying a top after a rally like this. But long term, I think COF will serve investors well.
Financial Stock to Sell: Citigroup
The Federal Reserve’s stress tests are kind of like the SATs: A decent measure of potential, but certainly not the last word on where the test-taker will be 10 years from now.
But it’s safe to say that as imperfect as the methodology is, a failing grade should always set off warning bells. Thus, investors should run screaming from Citigroup — especially after a very frothy run-up of 50% since Thanksgiving.
Citi didn’t meet the 5% “Tier 1? capital requirement of the Fed — and let’s be honest, there are certainly clouds on the horizon that would justify the need for a rainy-day fund. From geopolitical unrest in the Middle East to the Greek debt crisis, it’s not hard to imagine another “shock” to the global economy in the near future.
Furthermore, while other banks like Capital One and JPMorgan are making strides to advance their sales and earnings, Citi remains below pre-2008 levels. What’s more, fiscal 2011 earnings and revenue were significantly on the decline from 2010 numbers even as other banks continued to see stability and improvement.
If that’s what’s happening now, just imagine if new regulations take a bite out of the balance sheet in future quarters.
Most disturbing is that, like AIG, Citi has to sell some of its best growth opportunities to keep its operations in good standing with the government. Reports emerged just before the stress test that Citigroup plans to sell its almost 10% stake in Housing Development Finance Corp., India’s largest mortgage lender. True, the opportunity hasn’t lived up to the hype since Citi’s 2005 buy-in, but getting out of emerging markets when North American operations remain lackluster isn’t much of a growth plan.
I would suggest taking profits in Citi if you own shares. If not, sit this stock out.
Jeff Reeves is the editor of InvestorPlace.com. Write him at editor@investorplace.com, follow him on Twitter via @JeffReevesIP and become a fan of InvestorPlace on Facebook. As of this writing, he did not own a position in any of the aforementioned stocks.