A couple of years ago, I received an email with the subject line Internet usage will cost you more.

With the words cost more striking terror in my savvy shopping heart, I opened the message. As it turned out, what I found was an articulate letter concerning the issue of net neutrality.

What I couldnt find was anything enlightening. Instead of an explanation of the pros and cons of this important topic, all I got were hot button words like liberty, bureaucrat and government takeover.

Since I couldnt rely on the email to make sense of things, I had to take matters into my own hands and find out the facts for myself. Back then, I shared what I found out to help inform savvy shoppers. As this important subject has been recently resurrected for proposed changes, I thought revisiting this issue might be timely:

Basics Before going too much farther, it probably a good idea to answer the question What is net neutrality?

In a nutshell, net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic be treated equally. Whether you are checking email, shopping, posting to Facebook or streaming video, all the information you send and receive should be treated the same.

In other words, your internet service provider, or ISP, cant arbitrarily block or slow down your access to content.

Since its inception, the web has been operating according to this principle. However, in 2010, Verizon successfully persuaded the courts to overturn existing net neutrality rules. What resulted was a renewed debate over what net neutrality should be and how it should be implemented.

Although net neutrality rules were formalized in 2015, some now suggest that these standards should be relaxed or abolished altogether.

Why does net neutrality matter? On a societal level, open and equal access to the web has fostered an environment where innovators have had an equitable shot at establishing an online presence.

Without protection against artificial barriers, many argue that companies like Google and Facebook, which were recently small start-ups, might not be around today.

In addition, the idea of equal access helps assure that existing content providers have a level playing field. Otherwise, an ISP could use its control of the internet to capriciously create advantages for itself and its partners.

As one example, AT&T could contrive an edge for its movie services by throttling video signals from companies like Netflix and Hulu. Taken farther, an ISP could use their control over internet traffic to extort money from companies that want to maintain unfettered flow.

Over time, this lack of openness would probably alter the competitive landscape to a situation where business connections, rather than merit, determine a companys viability.

Cost On an end user level, I think the possible end of net neutrality carries implications that are huge in terms of cost and service.

In the first place, any development that decreases competition is bound to increase prices. At the same time, if competition somehow endures, the immense power that ISPs possess virtually assures that content providers like Facebook will experience substantially increased costs.

Why should you care? As the saying goes, any cost borne by a company ultimately gets passed to the consumer. In other words, get ready to pay for a lot of websites that are now free. In my opinion, everything from Ask.com to Youtube is at risk.

Complexity As much as I dont care for increased prices, this much I can almost stand. What I really dread about compromised net neutrality is the Pandoras box of complexity that is bound to open up.

If access to the internet can be variably priced and arbitrarily throttled for providers, whats to stop this from happening to consumers as well? In a word, nothing!

In fact, such opportunity for additional revenue streams would probably prove irresistible to the Viacoms of the world. Put another way, get ready for highly complicated billing that would make Einstein throw up his hands in despair.

For starters, rates could be variable based on the time of day, date, and your real time usage level. Suffice to say that the possibilities for complication are virtually limitless. Potentially, customers will experience exponentially greater time and trouble while paying more for internet access.

While everyone claims to be for an open internet, opinions widely differ on the best way to achieve this.

Recently, the Federal Communications Commissionvoted to overturn the existing rules for an open and unfettered web. Although the time for public comment has passed, many observers agree that this is a beginning of the debate rather than the end.

In other words, this issue is far from settled.

With the stakes very high for customers, I believe it is imperative for savvy shoppers to get acquainted with this issue, get involved and influence the outcome. In case you think you cant make a difference, it was public outcry that got net neutrality formalized in the first place. There is no better time to get involved. We have nothing to lose but incomprehensible bills and skyrocketing prices!

If you have thoughts on net neutrality or anything else, please visit and Like our Facebook site (Click https://www.facebook.com/LubbockSavvyShopper or log on to Facebook and enter Lubbock Savvy Shopper in the search tool) or write us at SavvyShopperLubbock@gmail.com and let us know your thoughts.

When you visit, you will find a lot of good information and people. Dont miss out!

SEAN FIELDS is the A-Js Savvy Shopper. Read his columns Sundays and Wednesdays. Email him at SavvyShopperLubbock@gmail.com, like his Facebook page at Facebook.com/LubbockSavvyShopper, or see previous columns and deals at lubbockonline.com/savvy-shopper.

More here:
Savvy Shopper: Education yourself about net neutrality it still matters - LubbockOnline.com

If money talks, Chinese money is particularly loud these days. In the past five years, Chinese investment abroad largely dominated by the countrys giant state-owned enterprises has tripled. Today, China accounts for nearly 10 percent of global foreign direct investment outflow.

In an era of austerity, influxes of investment are often appreciated. But not all Chinese money receives a warm welcome as evidencedby Germanys recent decision to limit investment into its strategic infrastructure. This is especially truewhen it comes to granting China access to Western infrastructure, sensitive telecoms and high-tech companies.

Western countries are right to pay careful attention to what Chinese companies do with their money. The trouble, however, is there is no agreed-upon standard for determining when an investment poses a security risk and no coordination even among the closest Western allies in deciding which investments should be blocked. As Chinese money continues to flow westward, the future of European and North American security could depend on governments in those regions coming up with a common policy on where that money can be spent.

Fortunately, governments are starting to take note of the problem.Earlier this year, France, Germany and Italy called on the European Commission to rethink EU investment rules in light of a lack of reciprocity, given that Beijing imposes tight restrictions on foreign companies looking to operate in China.

While reciprocity may at first seem to have little to do with access to sensitive infrastructure, the two issues are in factintricately linked.Both are core components of Chinas economic strategy: Made in China: 2025.

Beijings economic strategy, announced in May 2015, is to strengthen its hand in global production chains. It is aiming to raise the proportion of core components that are made in China to 40 percent in 2020 and 70 percent by 2025, and it is targetingin 10 core areas, including aviation, new materials, high-end manufacturing, integrated circuits and next generation information technology.

Even when one country determines that a Chinese buyout of a Western firm is OK, others might view it as a security risk.

As some observers have pointed out,the strategy could have serious consequences outside China. The plan relies on three pillars: first, to create a basic sanctuary for Chinese companies, using non-tariff barriers to bar competition from Western multinational companies; second, to subsidize Chinese companies to better compete in international markets; and third, to enable Chinese companies to dominate certain key sectors related to national security, and smart technologies and manufacturing. According to the research center MERICS,Western decision-makers should be aware that Chinas long-term goal is to replace foreign with domestic technology.

At Davos in January, Chinese President Xi Jinpingpromised to open Chinas mining, infrastructure, services and technology sectors to foreign investment, and many western firms are now waiting to see how the issue is tackled domestically this fall. Xis pledge is already looking shaky. A new cybersecurity law passed in Beijing earlier this month walls off foreign investment into Chinas critical information infrastructure and indicates skeptics may be right about Beijings overall direction.

Many Western governments including the U.K. have discovered that it is very difficult to accurately assess risks that come with accepting investment from Chinese firms, because of uncertainties around state control and state subsidies and concerns about private companies acting as proxies for the Chinese government.

It is still unclear how much power Beijing wields over both private and state-owned enterprises. They cannot act against the wishes of the Ministry of State Security or other similar agencies, but does that mean they should be seen as vessels for state espionage or subversion?

The result can be a lack of consistency. Even when one country determines that a Chinese buyout of a Western firm is OK, others might view it as a security risk.Canada, for example, green-lighted the purchase of Norsat, a Canadian satellite communications firm, by the giant Chinese telecoms firm Hytera. Several weeks later, the U.S. Pentagon decided to review its contract with Norsat over concerns that a political desire for more investment could have taken precedence over a proper review.

Similarly, the U.K. allowed a Chinese consortium to acquire a 49 percent stake in Global Switch, a British-based cloud computing center. After a Chinese financial firm within the consortium, AVIC Trust, was found to be a subsidiary of a Chinese defense industrial giant, the Australian defense department decided to withdraw as a client from Global Switch.

In an age in which military advantage can be upended by technologies arising in Shoreditch and Silicon Valley, better monitoring of foreign investment is indispensable to security.

The two cases reveal a lack of communication even among the Five Eyes allies Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. andthe U.S. that make up the most interconnected intelligence-sharing alliance in the world. It also demonstrates the complications that can arise when one ally does not agree with anothers assessment.

To be sure, any international dialogue that sets out to restrict investment can only be advisory; in the current economic climate, countries will not agree to anything that waters down their right to accept foreign investment. But Western countries, beginning with the Five Eyes allies, would be wise toquickly create a common mechanism to appraise investment from China and elsewhere.

Regular dialogue between foreign investment officials in allied countries would serve their shared security. The U.K., particularly, needs to establish a government agency responsible for screening foreign investment. Sharing data and communicating about trends related to the latest investment surges into key sensitive technologies will allow also governments to develop a more holistic view of what foreign states are targeting in any given investment cycle.

In an age in which military advantage can be upended by technologies arising in Shoreditch and Silicon Valley, better monitoring of foreign investment is indispensable to security.

John Hemmings is director of the Asian studies center at Henry Jackson Society.

This article is part of an occasional series: China looks West

Read the rest here:
Risky business: Keeping an eye on Chinese investment - POLITICO.eu

You are the type of person who always likes to plan: at what age you will marry, when you will buy your first home, how many children youll have, where your career will be in ten years, and when you can look forward to retirement. But sometimes, life throws a curveball, and your best-laid plans including your investment plans get sidetracked.

In my experience, there are four major curveballs that can impact even the best of financial plans. These are unexpected job loss, unexpected health crisis, unexpected major home or car repairs, and poor portfolio design. While they may be out of your control to some extent, there are concrete steps you can take to mitigate the negative effects on your investment timeline.

Job loss. Last week, you were called in to the bosss office and informed that your position had been eliminated. You left in disbelief, wondering how you would meet all of your expenses, let alone continue building a portfolio. In a situation like this, you will need to sit down with pen and paper and look hard at numbers. Your current budget will have to change; you will have to prioritize your immediate expenses (rent, food, utilities, insurance, etc.) over paying down debt. You will need to rework the rest of your budget, trimming back to save on all unnecessary expenses (entertainment, dining out, clothing) and perhaps even eliminate some altogether (vacation, major purchases). Keep your savings and credit line open. As soon as you are eligible, apply for unemployment benefits. Importantly, make sure that your medical insurance doesnt lapse even though saving on monthly premiums might be tempting. Lastly, do not cash in your current 401(k); let it ride until you can compare plans with that of your future job. Try not to get too stressed. ... This might be the sort of surprising scenario wherein you find yourself better off in a new position than you had been previously.

Health crisis. One minute you are fine; the next, you or a family member are grappling with an unexpected health issue. If a long absence from work is required, consider returning to your job gradually. Research government programs such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and state laws to see whether you might be eligible for coverage. Carefully read over your insurance plan benefits. Do you have disability insurance, and what is the waiting period before you can collect?

Advertisement

Major repairs. Your home has flooded, and youve never gotten around to purchasing flood insurance; or, perhaps youve had a car accident. This is where your emergency reserve comes in. You, the practical planner, have put aside a designated amount of cash for this type of situation. However, if you dont have an emergency stash, there are steps you can take to lessen the impact. Try to negotiate a payment plan with the mechanic or vendors; prioritize the necessary repairs. Youve remediated after the flood, but perhaps you can hold off on repainting or refurnishing for now. Or, your car radiator might need attention, but can you live with a dented bumper for a while?

Poor portfolio construction. Poor portfolio decisions often go hand in hand with an uncooperative investment climate, an example of which was the lost decade of December 31, 1999, through December 31, 2009, when the S&P 500s total return was less than zero percent over ten years. Too much stock in one company (i.e., most commonly, too much stock in your employer) or not being properly diversified (i.e., you are up to your eyeballs in tech stocks of the late 1990s) are examples of poor portfolio construction. Both of these mistakes can extend your working years because your investment portfolio value isnt adequate to fund your retirement through your and your partners/spouses life expectancy. At some level, it is out of your control even well-diversified portfolios were crushed in 2008 but by being diversified in a manner consistent with your risk tolerance, time horizon and liquidity needs, you can reduce this risk significantly.

Whatever your circumstances, try as quickly as possible to get back on track. Return to your dollar cost averaging. Stay the course and think of the long term. The worst thing to do is to act on emotion rather than the reality of your personal finances. Whether you are facing a true obstacle to your investing, or only if your anxiety level has increased because of media headlines, it rarely pays off to act impulsively which youve known all along.

Joseph Matthews is a Financial Advisor with the Wealth Management Division of Morgan Stanley in Fairfield. He can be reached at 203-319-5165 or by email at joseph.matthews@morganstanley.com. The information contained in article is not a solicitation to purchase or sell investments. Any information presented is general in nature and not intended to provide individually tailored investment advice. The strategies and/or investments referenced may not be suitable for all investors as the appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investors individual circumstances and objectives. Investing involves risks and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest. Diversification does not guarantee a profit or protect against a loss.

Read the original post:
MARKET MATTERS: When life throws a curveball at your investment timeline - New Haven Register

Volatility is just volatility; the market has gone through both bull markets and bear markets during times of low volatility and high volatility. It would be wrong to assume that low volatility means bad times are coming.

The thing were supposed to be worrying about now is that no one seems to be worried.

Seriously, thats what Wall Street has come to, a point when The Wall Street Journal is running concurrent headlines saying that short-sellers investors betting that the market will go down are giving up, while wary investors have piled nearly $10 billion more into global stock funds in the week ending July 19.

Wall Street has always been a place where good news is often treated like its bad, and vice versa. But no one was squawking that the Dow Jones industrial average, the Standard & Poors 500, the Russell 1000 and Russell 2000 indexes all hit record highs just as that fresh flood of money was peaking.

No one seemed concerned about buying high and selling low at a time when the skeptics are having a tough time finding a catalyst for a long-awaited market meltdown.

And so the worry du jour becomes that no one is worried.

The statistics show just how calm the market has become.

According to Terri Spath of Sierra Investment Management, it has been more than 260 days since the last time the Standard & Poors 500 went through a correction of 5 percent (which is more like a hiccup than a correction), and the first half of 2017 registered the second-smallest drawdown for the S&P 500 a decline of 2.8 percent since 1950.

In a normal year for the market, Spath noted, theres a drawdown of 14 percent somewhere.

The CBOE Volatility Index or VIX the so-called fear gauge which attempts to measure the expected volatility of the S&P 500 for the next 30 days has closed under 10 a total of 13 times since May 8. It closed below that level on just 20 days in the preceding 27 years.

But volatility is just volatility; the market has gone through both bull markets and bear markets during times of low volatility and high volatility. It would be wrong to assume that low volatility means bad times are coming.

Investors have plenty of legitimate reasons to be anxious: global politics, tax reform and health care all are concerns.

Many experts believe that if the current administration fails to show significant progress on its political agenda, the Trump bump could turn into a Trump dump.

The market, to this point, is having none of it; nothing has derailed the bull market.

Investors should be concerned and nervous in all market conditions, but fearing that a lack of worry is the sign of a market top is a waste of energy and emotion.

Worry instead about whether all of this investment prosperity has made you complacent.

The no-worry worry will disappear with a few bad days on the market.

End that string without a 5 percent downturn or suffer that normal 14 percent drawdown, and some investors heads will explode before they can even make a rational decision about whether this is a bear market or just another buyable dip.

Spath noted in an interview that the markets signs are all saying stay invested but that investors senses should be tingling and reminding them to stay alert, revisiting their sell disciplines and setting stop-losses to protect against a downturn.

Complacency in this market is having let your winners run to where your portfolio is out of balance.

If you have been overweight in domestic stocks and are worried about the market here going back to your planned allocations will smooth out the ride whenever the market turns. It will also expose more of your assets to emerging markets; Europe and other asset classes that have been better performers year-to-date than domestic stocks.

For all of the success that buy-American investors are enjoying, the home field has not been the most profitable place to invest this year and many observers believe that trend will continue.

The bullish run will end at some point, but the chief investment officers and market strategists I talk with daily dont think the end is near. The consensus isnt always right the general view for 2017 didnt include double-digit market gains by midyear, nor the ability to defy the gravity of bad news but the easy case for analysts now involves the markets run continuing for at least another year.

Whenever the run-up ends, it wont be a lack of worry that kills it. Bull markets dont die of old age or investor complacency; they end when the numbers stop adding up.

But complacency can kill a portfolio, especially when it reaches a turning point; worry enough now in good times so that it doesnt happen to you.

More here:
Investment prosperity can make investors complacent - The Seattle Times

Japanese tech giant SoftBank has been plowing billions of dollars into tech companies, both public and privately held, in the last year -- so much so that one investor has questioned whether SoftBank is fueling a new valuation bubble in tech.

Some of these investments are coming from the gigantic SoftBank Vision Fund, which includes funds from SoftBank as well as Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund and tech companies like Apple, Foxconn, Qualcomm and Sharp. The fund announced in May that it had closed $93 billion in capital, and hopes to raise $100 billion by the end of the year.

But SoftBank has also announced many investments that don't involve the Vision Fund. According to reports and sources familiar, some of these investments will be offered to the Vision Fund, while others will not.

Here's a partial list:

Vision Fund investments:

SoftBank investments that are expected to be offered to the Vision Fund

SoftBank investments that are not currently expected to be offered to the Vision Fund

This week, SoftBank was also reported to be considering an investment of "billions" in ride-hailing giant Uber, and to be leading a $250 million investment in business messaging platform Slack.

See the original post:
SoftBank Vision Fund investments so far - CNBC.com - CNBC

Its easy to get lulled by the gentle and seemingly unstoppable ride higher that investors have been enjoying with almost all their funds. But it cant last forever.

Greg Davis, the new chief investment officer at investing giant Vanguard, isnt predicting when the next downturn for stocks will happen, but he says investors need to be ready for it given how expensive the market has become. So if swelling stock prices mean they make up a much bigger part of your portfolio than before, and you wouldnt be able to stomach a 10 percent drop without panicking, consider paring back on them.

The largest mutual fund by assets, Vanguards Total Stock Market Index fund, has returned 11.4 percent so far in 2017, for example. Thats close to its best performance for any of the past three full years.

In his role, Davis oversees more than $3.8 trillion in assets, including the stock index funds that made Vanguard famous and bond funds run by managers looking to beat the market. Thats close to the size of Germanys economy. Davis is no stranger at Vanguard. He previously oversaw its bond investments.

Davis recently talked about his outlook for markets and fund investing. Answers have been edited for clarity and length.

Q: Nearly every investment is going up, from stocks in the U.S. to bonds from emerging markets to stocks in Europe. Is it worrisome that everything is doing so well at the same time?

A: I dont see that as worrisome, those things being in sync. The bigger concern is that valuations have gotten a bit stretched, on the equity side as well as the fixed-income side. Thats a bigger concern to me than all these things moving in tandem. Much of that can be attributed to the very loose monetary policy from central banks around the world. Thats put a very strong bid across these markets.

So its not a surprise, but there is a need for caution and a need for customers to be comfortable with the amount of risk in their portfolios. Its something they should be looking at. You can never predict when a downturn will come, but it will eventually come, and investors need to make sure theyre not too far ahead of their skis.

Q: Conventional wisdom says that the U.S. stock market is more overvalued than in Europe and other countries. Do you agree?

A: If you look at Europe, those markets look a bit more attractive than the U.S. market. The way we would talk to investors is: You want to be diversified around the globe. You want to have the diversification so that if there is a downturn in the market, you dont do inappropriate things at inappropriate times.

Q: Inappropriate things means selling low whenever stocks take their next tumble?

A: Absolutely.

Q: And when youre telling people to stay diversified, that sounds like shorthand for making sure you have enough bonds in your portfolio to ease the sting of any downturn for stocks. Can bonds still be that stabilizer if yields are so low?

A: If you go back and look at the worst months for the equity markets, high-quality bonds provided a strong ballast to an investors portfolio. If youre in one of those environments where U.S. stocks go down 6 percent, you typically have high-quality bonds showing slightly positive returns.

Its an asset class thats not expected to go down, even in a low-rate environment. After the Brexit vote, even when yields (on European bonds) were negative, high-quality bonds still held up even as equities sold off. Bonds have historically done their job, even when theyre yielding low amounts or even negative yields.

Q: Investors seem to be throwing in the towel on funds run by stock pickers, and theyre choosing index funds instead. Do you think index funds will continue to be the overwhelming favorite for where investors put their new dollars?

A: Our view is that investors are clearly voting that paying high costs in an environment where returns are expected to be muted are not the best option for them, and were seeing them move to lower-cost funds. If you have a higher cost structure, its harder for you to outperform your market. And if you do, you have to take on substantially more risk to achieve those returns.

Any manager in our complex is low-cost by nature. Weve seen significant inflows into our active funds as well.

Q: Do you think the industry could ever get to a point where someone offers a fund with zero fees, to be a loss leader and bring in customers for their other funds?

A: You already have people doing loss-leader strategies now. You have companies adding new funds that are clones of existing funds that are at a lower price to try to be a loss leader. The reality is you have to look at the entire complex and ask if its enduring.

The industry broadly is still too-high cost, across the board. Theres still opportunity for many prices to go down.

More here:
Vanguard's new chief investment officer has a warning for investors - The Denver Post

No matter what the location and what type of property, every buyer wants to feel theyre getting a great deal and arent paying the highest price, said Raifie Bass, an Aspen-based broker for Douglas Elliman.

And purchasing a property in a transitioning neighborhood is one way a buyer can optimize potential appreciation and growth. But timing the purchase depends in large part on whether the buyer is looking for a solid long-term investment or a new place to occupy as a primary or secondary residence.

Knowing when to pull the trigger on an investment in a changing neighborhood often comes down to how much risk the buyer wants to take on, said Paul Habibi, a professor of real estate at the UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate.

If you purchase a property in an area right as it starts transitioning, a lot of people will tell you that youre taking a big risk, and I would agree, he said. But the problem is that once an investment is proven, the risk may go away, but so do the returns.

More:Geopolitical Events Have Immediate Impact on Luxury Market Activity, Not Pricing

From the investment perspective

For luxury purchasers who want a solid investment with growth potential that they likely wont live inat least at the presentMr. Habibi said that timing comes down to satisfying three criteria.

First, he said, youre looking for policy changes that impact land-use rules or increase subsidies, both of which make it easier for developers or investors to come into a neighborhood and make changes. Next, he said, youre looking for an investment in infrastructure, or big public/private partnerships that spur retail or housing development.

When you see a local government or municipality thats pro-growth, and a big investment being made, thats a real sign of change, Mr. Habibi said. This should give investors the first glimpse that something is about to happen, and let them know that gentrification is right around the corner.

Finally, with these two criteria satisfied, buyers should look for signs of private sector development and investment, he said. This could mean grocery stores, banks and other support services sprouting up where they werent before, or other types of businesses entering the scene.

A recent example of this phenomenon is downtown Los Angeles. In 1999, the city approved a policy called the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, which made it easier and less expensive for developers to convert commercial buildings into condos, apartments, retail centers and hotels.

More:Pricing a Property Based on Comps is Still the RuleUnless Its Incomparable

Then, major capital investment was made in the area, with the 1999 opening of the multi-purpose Staples Center, a popular event venue thats also home to Los Angeless NBA, NHL and WNBA teams, and the adjacent L.A. Live event venue in 2007.

In 2006, the private sector opened the first major downtown grocery store, Mr. Habibi said, which was followed by an influx of restaurants, bars and retail establishments.

Today, Inglewood, a city of 110,000 in southwestern Los Angeles County, is on that same trajectory. After Inglewoods mayor showed that he welcomed development after his 2010 election, the citys indoor sports arena, The Forum, was renovated in 2012 by Madison Square Garden Group and re-launched in 2014.

In November, construction began on a $2.6 billion, 80,000-seat stadium, which will be home to the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers NFL teams when its completed in 2020. The stadium is the centerpiece of a larger 298-acre mixed-use development called the City of Champions Revitalization Project.

In addition to this cataclysmic investment, the city, which is located near Los Angeles International Airport, is undergoing infrastructure investment, as the Crenshaw-LAX rail line, which will connect to lines that reach downtown Los Angeles, is under construction. Today, these things are sure to change the face of the neighborhood, Mr. Habibi said.

Even though the Inglewood transition is still relatively new, Mr. Habibi said, prices in the area have already started increasing. In downtown L.A. and other places like Venice Beach, where gentrification has already occurred, those changes have been more pronounced.

More:The Pros (and Cons) of Purchasing in a Gut-Renovated Condo Building

While the investment might still be lucrative in these place, and theyre still growing, if youd invested in Inglewood at the first signs of change five years ago or in downtown L.A. or Venice Beach 10 years ago, you would have tripled your money by now, Mr. Habibi said.

Similar story in Brooklyn

Like Inglewood, an area of Brooklyn located southeast of Prospect Park along Flatbush Avenue also satisfies these criteria. While it was once home to the first major battle of the Revolutionary War in 1776, and was a place where affluent Irish and Jewish families settled in the 1930s, in recent years, the neighborhood has fallen off the radar of real estate investors. Slowly, thats started to change, said broker Joshua Garay of Garay Real Estate.

Two years ago, the historic Kings Theatre reopened after a massive $95 million restoration. Upcoming events include concerts by The Shins and St. Vincent, and the family-friendly Paw Patrol Live! Across Flatbush Avenue, a seven-story hotel is being raised, as boutiques are replacing outdated retail businesses, and three Starbucks have opened on the strip, Mr. Garay said.

All this led him to recommend that his developer client, Blank Property Group, purchase a mixed use, four-story building built in 1930 at 1001 Flatbush Ave., which they picked up for $2 million in cash earlier this month.

More:How to Decide If Its Time To Take Your Listing Off the Market (For Now)

While in Manhattan, theres not as much opportunity to purchase value-added properties, in Brooklyn, you can still find emerging areas where theres a lot of opportunity for strong appreciation, Mr. Garay said.

Both he and Mr. Habibi said that investors looking to capitalize on gentrification without living in the property themselves should consider purchasing a small, two- to four-unit multi-family building. This sort of project has less risk than buying retail or office space, Mr. Habibi said. Most folks just understand the dynamics of a residential building better, and can make investments of this size with relative ease.

In terms of where buyers should look before they know if criteria like policy changes and infrastructure investment have been satisfied, Mr. Habibi said the easiest thing to do is follow the current path of development, and pick the next community or the next frontier.

You can also follow artists and progressives to see where theyre settling, as Mr. Habibi said that, a high influx of those folks into a community is like adding kindling to the fire.

More:Smart Investors Follow Developers They Trust for Best Price, Pick of Inventory and ROI

Investing in a place to live, with growth potential

For luxury buyer-occupiers, purchasing in a transitioning neighborhood often comes down to getting more for their money and expecting solid, if not slow, appreciation over the years. Unlike purchasing a multi-family development as an investment, these buyers typically buy in a transitioning market farther down the line, when the risks are minimal.

Manhattans Lower East Side is an example of a neighborhood where luxury buyers can now purchase in a new development and get all the amenities they might expect in an area like Tribeca or SoHo for a fraction of the cost.

Prices in developments like 150 Rivington and 196 Orchard, where theres an onsite Equinox gym, start around $1,750 per square foot and go up to $2,500 per square foot, said Howard Margolis and Jeff Adler of the Margolis, Espinal, Adler team at Douglas Elliman. But thats competitive in the new development space, Mr. Margolis said, because anywhere else in the city these buildings would be asking $3,000 per square foot or more.

Unlike Flatbush or Inglewood, many buyers of Lower East Side luxury condos are creative people in the arts, who moved into the area when they were younger, but now, in their 30s to 50s, want to stay put but upgrade to something a little bit nicer than the neighborhood could traditionally offer. These buildings are being built with the environment in mind to appeal to people that have always loved the Lower East Side, Mr. Adler said.

More:Time to Cut a Deal on a Mega-Mansion in New Yorks Struggling Suburbia

Even though these are the highest prices ever seen in the Lower East Side, theyre primed to keep going up, Mr. Adler and Mr. Margolis said. In terms of whether the timing is right to purchase in the area, its impossible to be sure, they said. But if you need a place to live and you can afford to buy one of these apartments, no matter where we are in the market cycle, if youre going to be there for five to seven years, youre going to do just fine financially, Mr. Margolis said.

Burgeoning new developments around the world

In Knight Franks 2017 Luxury Report, the Centro neighborhood in Madrid, Quartier des Pquis area in Geneva, and Santo Spirito and Porta Romana neighborhoods in Florence were also singled out as emerging locations where development is rippling out from more popular tourist and residential sectors.

The final neighborhood on the Knight Frank gentrification list is West Aspen, an area about a mile and a half from the much more expensive and in demand Aspen downtown core. Like the Lower East Side, where the price per square foot of condos can be about half that of similar units in more established neighborhoods, the same rules apply in West Aspen, where buyers can get much more houseand more landfor less money.

In recent years, pricing for condos and townhouses in Aspens core has pushed north of $3,000 or $4,000 per square foot, said Mr. Bass, who has worked in the area for two-plus decades. With that much pressure on the core, a lot of buyers are looking for more space and a better value proposition, he said.

More:Click for More In-Depth Analysis of Luxury Lifestyle News

By just crossing the bridge into West Aspen, lots jump in size from a range of 3,000 to 9,000 square feet on the west end of Aspen up to 15,000 square feet in West Aspen, as prices drop down to about $1,200 per square foot.

This isnt necessarily about neighborhood revitalization, because West Aspen has always had the free bus service into town and an excellent school system, Mr. Bass said. Its about taking older homes in a more established neighborhood, and building properties that are nicer and more contemporary.

You could spend $7 or $8 million in the core, or go across the bridge into West Aspen and get twice as much space with other amenities for a couple million less, Mr. Bass said. Either way, the demand is still there.

Follow Mansion Global:

Stay up to date with Mansion Global newsletters

Sign Up

See the original post:
How to Spot a Good Investment in a Changing Neighborhood - Mansion Global

The provider of a bitcoin exchange-traded note (ETN) in Sweden hassaid that it will track what the market considers to be "bitcoin" following a possible network split next week.

XBT Provider AB released a statementoutlining its plans ahead of what could be a split in the bitcoin blockchain on August 1, one pursued by the proponents of an alternative implementation called Bitcoin Cash. The first of two ETNs launched by XBT Provider went live in mid-2015 following approval by the Swedish government.

The firm said that, as the ETN holders don't actually possess any bitcoin, they won't be directly affected. But XBT Provider said it is moving proactively to protect the bitcoin holdings that the ETN tracks, steps which include safeguarding the assets themselves in the event of a chain split.

"The Guarantor's group companies have moved as much of their bitcoins held on account as is practicable in the circumstances to custodian infrastructure that will support both coins should a new coin result from the anticipated fork," the company stated.

Ultimately, the firm said it will align with whichever chain the market deems to be "bitcoin", explaining:

"The Issuer wishes to further clarify that its Certificates are designed to track "bitcoin" and not any alternative coin which results from a forking event and which shared a common transaction history prior to the fork. Therefore, the Issuer's Certificates will, after a fork, be referenced to the coin which the bitcoin community and exchanges define, and consider to be, 'bitcoin'."

This approach isn't set in stone, however, as XBT Provider will undertake a three-month observation period, during which it will wait and see which chain comes to attract the most support.

Train yard imagevia Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Have breaking news or a story tip to send to our journalists? Contact us at [emailprotected].

Link:
Bitcoin Investment Vehicle Adopts Open Strategy Ahead of Blockchain Fork - CoinDesk

A member of SpaceXs board of directors will reportedly leave the Silicon Valley venture capital firm he co-founded to start an investment firm focused, at least initially, on raising funds for SpaceX.

News organization Axios reported Thursday afternoon that Luke Nosek, co-founder and partner at Founders Fund, was leaving his firm to start Gigafund, an investment firm that would be initially aimed at raising capital for the Elon Musk-led Hawthorne space company.

SEC documents filed Thursday list Nosek as a managing member at Gigafund, which has a principal place of business in Redwood City, Calif. The filing also lists Stephen Oskoui as being part of Gigafund. Oskoui is listed on LinkedIn as a venture partner at Founders Fund.

Attempts to reach Nosek were unsuccessful Thursday afternoon.

In a statement, SpaceX spokesman John Taylor said, While we wish Luke well in his new endeavors, there is no guarantee of future investment allocations in SpaceX or any other companies associated with Elon.

While at Founders Fund, Nosek led investments in SpaceX. He was also a member of the PayPal founding team, along with Musk and entrepreneur Peter Thiel, who is a partner at Founders Fund.

Brian Singerman, partner at Founders Fund, confirmed in a statement that Nosek was leaving the venture capital firm but would only say he was headed to launch a new endeavor.

His unwavering commitment to entrepreneurs and passion for technology shaped the founding ethos of Founders Fund, Singerman said. We are grateful for his contributions and we wish him well.

Founders Fund said it had no further comment.

SpaceX, a private company, was valued this month at $21.2 billion, according to Equidate, an online trading platform that specializes in large, private technology firms.

In 2015, SpaceX sold a nearly 10% stake in the company to Google and Fidelity Investments for a $1-billion investment.

samantha.masunaga@latimes.com

Twitter: @smasunaga

Link:
PayPal co-founder launches firm to raise investment funds for SpaceX, report says - Los Angeles Times

After an 8.4% sales increase from the previous year and Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods for $13.7 billion, it looks like organic food is growing into a normal part of American life. Video by Henry Taylor

Producer of organic nectarines examines the ripeness of the nectarines at his field in Saint-Genis des Fontaines(Photo: RAYMOND ROIG, AFP/Getty Images)

Organic food sales are setting records asmore mainstream Americans fill their shopping carts with everything from eggs to gummy fruit snacks.

Having shed its hippy-dippy image, organic food is among the faster-growing categories in supermarkets even though it adds to food bills and studies vary when it comes to perceived health benefits.

Organicfood producers, which now includes giants such asGeneral Mills, are capturing more consumers such asbusiness coachPatty Lennon of Brookfield, Conn.

"Its produced in ahealthier way, without pesticides, without any bad things that contaminate the growth of the food and the growth of my kids," the 45-year-old mother of two said. "Asmy kids grow up, Iwant to know Ive done everything I could to put the right things in their bodies."

Sure, organic costs more. Lennon estimates the$450 she spends on groceries weeklywould drop to $275 or $300if she bought the usual non-organic products."I have the luxury of being able to afford it," she said..

In 2016, sales of organic food was at an all-time high of $43 billion, according to the Organic Trade Association.(Photo: Eileen Blass, USAT)

There are millions of other shoppers like her.

Sales of organic food hit a record $43 billion last year, up 8.4% from the previous year, according to the Organic Trade Association, based in Washington, D.C.. Compare that to the 0.6% growth rate in the overall food category. But they still have a long way to go: Overall, organic food now represents 5.3% of total retail food sales in the U.S.

Interest in organic products is booming not only due to a more conscientious consumer, but also thanks to rising incomes in a strong economy and improved farming practices that make organic yields more robust. The demand for organic extends from supermarket aisles to the multitude of farmers markets that have sprung up.

Organic's rising importance was underscored by Amazon's offer last month to buyWhole Foods Market, the upscale grocery chain known for its expansive produceselection, for $13.7 billion.

"There's an increasing awareness of organic products," saidRupesh Parikh, investment bank Oppenheimer's senior analyst for food, grocery and consumer products, who predicts continued double-digit annual growth. "Consumers are really looking more into what theyre eating."

The most popular organic items are fruits and vegetables, which account for close to 40% of all organic food sales, theOrganic Trade Association found. Organic produce sales grew at more than twice the rate of total fruit and vegetable sales.Almost 15% of veggies and fruit consumed in the U.S. is now organic.

With consumers' desire for more nutritious, less chemically-laden food comes a willingness to pay more. Some 44% of shoppers would pay an additional 20% or more for organic fresh vegetables, and 37% are willing to hand over that much more cash for organic poultry, found a study by the Hartman Group, a food and beverage research firm in Bellevue, Wash.

No wonder large food companies are diversifying their portfolios to include organic products.

"Finally, the conventional food and beverage industry has woken up and said, 'Why, this isnt niche anymore . Its eating into my share,' " Hartman Group senior vice president Shelley Balankosaid.

Campbell Souphas the Plum Organics baby food line and Bolthouse Farms salad dressings and juices. Coca-Cola has organicHonest Tea. Hormel's lineup includes organic meats label Applegate Farms.

General Mills'organic-only portfolio has grown more than 350% over the past fiveyears. Natural and organic sales were $1 billionthis year, growing at a double-digit clip since 2000 when the Minneapolis-based cereal makerfirst ventured into organic with the purchase of Small Planet Foods, which produces a variety of organic foods, from ketchup to granola bars. In 2014, General Mills acquired Annie's, which features fruit snacks, cereal,cookies and more.

"As the food values consumers are looking for have shifted, we always try to be responsive," said Carla Vernon, General Mills' vice president of the natural and organics portfolio.

The growing popularity of organic food has opened the door to price cutters.

The Sprouts Farmers Market chain, for instance, has become an organic alternative to Whole Foods. Andmainstream supermarket giants, such as Cincinnati-based Kroger, which operates a variety of chains around the nation, are dedicating more floor and shelf space to organic products.

With that customer migration from traditional groceries to organic goods will comelower prices for shoppers. Organic's profit margins are generally higher than on conventional groceries.

"When a product is available at more retailers, it puts pressure on gross margins and profitability," Parikhsaid. "Theres more available,so supply chain has an impact as well."

Related

Follow USA TODAY reporter Zlati Meyer on Twitter: @ZlatiMeyer

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2w2Hz2i

Read the original:

Organic food is pricier, but shoppers crave it - USA TODAY