Keyman Investment is a Australia registered company formed with a motive to make the world earn easy money . Keyman Investment draws attention to safety of its clients investments. It means that analysts and experts in economics and finance do a huge work of monitoring, analysis and forecasting the situation on the markets. Their recommendations allow to respond quickly to processes occurring on the exchange, so there can be no price fluctuations which cause negative consequences.
They bring together a wide range of insights, expertise and innovations to advance the interests of their clients around the world. They offer a big number of 10% who promote their business and build long-term and trusted relationships with their clients – wherever they are and wherever they invest.
They have professional highly trained and experienced team in their field of expertise enabling to provide the quality services demanded. They are seeking to create value for their clients by constantly looking for innovative solutions throughout the investment process.
What started out as a market for professionals is now attracting traders from all over the world, and of all experience levels and all because of online trading and investment. They are also to providing a comprehensive resource for clients new to the market or with limited experience trading Cryptocurrency investment, or interested in Forex, gold trade or stock market.
Through their unique combination of expertise, research and global reach, we work tirelessly to anticipate and advance what’s next—applying collective insights to help keep our clients at the forefront of change. They bring together a wide range of insights, expertise and innovations to advance the interests of our clients around the world.
The economic crisis and food system disruptions from the Covid-19 pandemic will worsen the lack of nutrition in women and children, with the potential to cost the world almost $30 billion in future productivity losses. As many as 3 billion people may be unable to afford a healthy diet due to the pandemic, according to a study published in Nature Food journal. This will exacerbate maternal and child under-nutrition in low- and middle-income countries, causing stunting, wasting, mortality and maternal anemia.
Nearly 690 million people were undernourished in 2019, up by almost 60 million since 2014. Nearly half of all deaths in children under age five are attributable to undernutrition and, regrettably, stunting and wasting still have strong impacts worldwide.
In 2019, 21 per cent of all children under age five (144 million) were stunted and 49.5 million children experienced wasting.The effects of the pandemic will increase child hunger, and an additional 6.7 million children are predicted to be wasted by the end of 2020 due to the pandemic’s impact.
The situation continues to be most alarming in Africa: 19 per cent of its population is under-nourished (more than 250 million people), with the highest prevalence of undernourishment among all global regions. Africa is the only region where the number of stunted children has risen since 2000.
Women and girls represent more than 70 per cent of people facing chronic hunger. They are more likely to reduce their meal intake in times of food scarcity and may be pushed to engage in negative coping mechanisms, such as transactional sex and child, early and forced marriage.
Extreme climatic events drove almost 34 million people into food crisis in 25 countries in 2019, 77 per cent of them in Africa. The number of people pushed into food crisis by economic shocks more than doubled to 24 million in eight countries in 2019 (compared to 10 million people in six countries the previous year).
Food insecurity is set to get much worse unless unsustainable global food systems are addressed. Soils around the world are heading for exhaustion and depletion. An estimated 33 per cent of global soils are already degraded, endangering food production and the provision of vital ecosystem services.
Evidence from food security assessments and analysis shows that COVID-19 has had a compounding effect on pre-existing vulnerabilities and stressors in countries with pre-existing food crises. In Sudan, an estimated 9.6 million people (21 per cent of the population) were experiencing crisis or worse levels of food insecurity (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) in the third quarter of 2020 and needed urgent action. This is the highest figure ever recorded for Sudan.
Food security needs are set to increase dramatically in 2021 as the pandemic and global response measures seriously affect food systems worldwide. Entire food supply chains have been disrupted, and the cost of a basic food basket increased by more than 10 per cent in 20 countries in the second quarter of 2020.
Delays in the farming season due to disruptions in supply chains and restrictions on labour movement are resulting in below-average harvests across many countries and regions. This is magnified by pre-existing or seasonal threats and vulnerabilities, such as conflict and violence, looming hurricane and monsoon seasons, and locust infestations. Further climatic changes are expected from La Niña.
Forecasters predict a 55 per cent change in climate conditions through the first quarter of 2021, impacting sea temperatures, rainfall patterns and hurricane activity. The ensuing floods and droughts that could result from La Niña will affect farming seasons worldwide, potentially decreasing crop yields and increasing food insecurity levels.
The devastating impact of COVID-19 is still playing out in terms of rising unemployment, shattered livelihoods and increasing hunger. Families are finding it harder to put healthy food on a plate, child malnutrition is threatening millions. The risk of famine is real in places like Burkina Faso, north-eastern Nigeria, South Sudan and Yemen.
COVID-19 has ushered hunger into the lives of more urban communities while placing the vulnerable, such as IDPs, refugees, migrants, older persons, women and girls, people caught in conflict, and those living at the sharp end of climate change at higher risk of starvation. The pandemic hit at a time when the number of acutely food-insecure people in the world had already risen since 2014, largely due to conflict, climate change and economic shocks.
Acute food-insecurity is projected to increase by more than 80 percent – from 149 million pre-COVID-19, to 270 million by the end of 2020 – in 79 of the countries where WFP works. The number of people in crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) almost tripled in Burkina Faso compared to the 2019 peak of the food insecurity situation, with 11,000 people facing catastrophic hunger (IPC/CH Phase 5) in mid-2020.
For populations in IPC3 and above, urgent and sustained humanitarian assistance is required to prevent a deterioration in the hunger situation. It is alarming that in 2020, insufficient funds left food security partners unable to deliver the assistance required. For example, sustained food ration reductions in Yemen have directly contributed to reduced food consumption since March. Today, Yemen is one of four countries at real risk of famine.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, food security has been a global concern – in the second quarter of 2020 there were multiple warnings of famine later in the year. According to early predictions, hundreds of thousands of people would likely die and millions more experience hunger without concerted efforts to address issues of food security.
In September 2020, David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Programme, addressed the United Nations Security Council, stating that measures taken by donor countries over the course of the preceding five months, including the provision of $17 trillion in fiscal stimulus and central bank support, the suspension of debt repayments instituted by the IMF and G20 countries for the benefit of poorer countries, and donor support for WFP programmes, had averted impending famine, helping 270 million people at risk of starvation.
May 29, Geoffrey P. Johnston More from Geoffrey P. Johnston Published on; May 29, 2020 | Last Updated; Edt, 2020 10:08 Am (29 May 2020). “Foodgrains bank working to prevent famine”. The Kingston Whig-Standard. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
Bitcoin traders and investors are still reeling from a steep sell-off that’s wiped around $1 trillion from the combined cryptocurrency market.
The bitcoin price has crashed from almost $65,000 per bitcoin to under $40,000 despite a flood of positive bitcoin news in recent weeks—including Twitter TWTR+0.2% chief executive Jack Dorsey teasing a bitcoin payments plan.
Now, analysis of bitcoin trading data has suggested the bitcoin price could be hit by a so-called “short squeeze”—when the price of an asset increases rapidly due to an excess of bets against it.
“Given bitcoin’s past market performance, when traders use excessive leverage to short the market during a horizontal price adjustment, there will often be a short squeeze phenomenon,” Flex Yang, the chief executive of Hong Kong-based crypto lender and asset manager Babel Finance, wrote in analysis seen by this reporter and pointing to market data that shows recent capital inflows are “from short-sellers and that leverage has greatly increased.”
Since the bitcoin and crypto market crashed in mid-April, the volume of bitcoin perpetual holdings on the crypto exchange Binance have increased by 110%, with the ratio of long to short traders reaching a new low of 0.89—pushing funding rates into the negative.
According to Yang, the reasons behind such excessive shorts include “many people are anticipating a bear market; bitcoin “holders are building hedges,” or “those who bought at high prices are locked in.”
Historical bitcoin price data between February and April 2018 and then again from June to late July 2020, suggests an increase in short-selling is often followed by a bitcoin price surge.
“In November 2020, there was a temporary sharp increase in the number of short-selling positions at a high price,” wrote Yang. “Afterwards, the price of bitcoin continued to rise, continuing its bull market position. No matter if the market outlook is trending downwards after rebounding or if bitcoin maintains its bull market status, short traders have always suffered the consequence of being squeezed out and liquidated.”
The early 2021 bitcoin price bull run was brought to a sharp halt in April when fears over a crypto crackdown in China and mounting concerns over bitcoin’s soaring energy demands sparked panic among investors.
Tesla TSLA+1.1% billionaire Elon Musk sent shockwaves through the bitcoin market when he announced Tesla would suspend its use of bitcoin for payments until the bitcoin network increased its use of renewable energy.
The bitcoin price has failed to recover its lost ground despite continued reports that Wall Street banking giants are increasingly offering bitcoin investment and trading services and the Central America country El Salvador revealed plans to adopt bitcoin as legal tender alongside the U.S. dollar.
I am a journalist with significant experience covering technology, finance, economics, and business around the world. As the founding editor of Verdict.co.uk I reported on how technology is changing business, political trends, and the latest culture and lifestyle. I have covered the rise of bitcoin and cryptocurrency since 2012 and have charted its emergence as a niche technology into the greatest threat to the established financial system the world has ever seen and the most important new technology since the internet itself. I have worked and written for CityAM, the Financial Times, and the New Statesman, amongst others. Follow me on Twitter @billybambrough or email me on billyATbillybambrough.com. Disclosure: I occasionally hold some small amount of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
From January to February 2018, the price of Bitcoin fell 65 percent. By September 2018, the MVIS CryptoCompare Digital Assets 10 Index had lost 80 percent of its value, making the decline of the cryptocurrency market, in percentage terms, greater than the bursting of the Dot-com bubble in 2002.
In November 2018, the total market capitalization for Bitcoin fell below $100 billion for the first time since October 2017, and the price of Bitcoin fell below $4,000, representing an 80 percent decline from its peak the previous January. Bitcoin reached a low of around $3,100 in December 2018.From 8 March to 12 March 2020, the price of Bitcoin fell by 30 percent from $8,901 to $6,206.By October 2020, Bitcoin was worth approximately $13,200.
The investors Warren Buffett and George Soros have respectively characterized it as a “mirage”and a “bubble”; while the business executives Jack Ma and Jamie Dimon have called it a “bubble” and a “fraud”, respectively. J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said later he regrets calling Bitcoin a fraud.
A year into the pandemic, the implications of how Covid-19 has changed how people will work from now on are becoming clear. Many employees will be working in a hybrid world with more choices about where, when, and how much they work. For midsize companies specifically, Gartner analysis shows that 46% of the workforce is projected to be working hybrid in the near future.
To better understand the impact of Covid-19 on the future of work, we surveyed 3,049 knowledge workers and their managers across onsite, remote, and hybrid work contexts, as well as 75 HR leaders, including 20 leaders from midsize companies. Except where indicated, our findings come from these 2021 surveys.
Managers used to be selected and promoted largely based on their ability to manage and evaluate the performance of employees who could carry out a particular set of tasks. Within the last five years, HR executives started to hire and develop managers who were poised to be great coaches and teachers. But the assumption that coaching should be the primary function of management has been tested since the pandemic began. Three disruptive, transformative trends are challenging traditional definitions of the manager role:
Understanding Midsize Businesses
Normalization of remote work. As both employees and managers have become more distributed, their relationships to one another have also become more asynchronous. Gartner estimates that in more than 70% of manager-employee relationships, either the manager or the employee will be working remotely at least some of the time. This means that employees and their managers will be less likely to be working on the same things at the same time. Managers will have dramatically less visibility into the realities of their employees’ day-to-day and will begin to focus more on their outputs and less on the processes used to produce them.
Acceleration in use of technology to manage employees. More than one in four companies have invested in new technology to monitor their remote employees during the pandemic. Companies have been buying scheduling software, AI-enabled expense-report auditing tools, and even technologies to replace manager feedback using AI. While companies have been focused on how technology can automate employee tasks, it can just as effectively replace the tasks of managers. At the extreme, by 2024, new technologies have the potential to replace as much as 69% of the tasks historically done by managers, such as assigning work and nudging productivity.
Employees’ changing expectations. As companies have expanded the support they offer to their employees in areas like mental health and child care during the pandemic, the relationships between employees and their managers have started to shift to be more emotional and supportive. Knowledge workers now expect their managers to be part of their support system to help them improve their life experience, rather than just their employee experience.
When managerial tasks are replaced by technology, managers aren’t needed to manage workflows. When interactions become primarily virtual, managers can no longer rely on what they see to manage performance, and when relationships become more emotional, they can no longer limit the relationship to the sphere of work. These three trends have culminated in a new era of management where it’s less important to see what employees are doing and more important to understand how they feel.
Radical flexibility requires empathetic managers
To be successful in this new environment, managers must lead with empathy. In a 2021 Gartner survey of 4,787 global employees assessing the evolving role of management, only 47% of managers are prepared for this future role. The most effective managers of the future will be those who build fundamentally different relationships with their employees.
Empathy is nothing new. It’s a common term in the philosophy of good leadership, but it has yet to be a top management priority. The empathic manager is someone who can contextualize performance and behavior — who transcends simply understanding the facts of work and proactively asks questions and seeks information to place themselves in their direct reports’ contexts.
Empathy requires developing high levels of trust and care and a culture of acceptance within teams. This is a lot to ask of any individual: that they ask questions that produce vulnerable answers without compromising trust, diagnose the root cause of an employee’s behavior without making assumptions, and demonstrate the social-emotional intelligence necessary to imagine another’s feelings.
Empathy isn’t easy, but it’s worth it. In fact, in that same survey, 85% of HR leaders at midsize companies agreed that it’s more important now for managers to demonstrate empathy than it was before the pandemic. Further Gartner analysis shows that managers who display high levels of empathy have three times the impact on their employees’ performance than those who display low levels of empathy. Employees at organizations with high levels of empathy-based management are more than twice as likely to agree that their work environment is inclusive.
Creating a new workforce of empathic managers is especially difficult for midsize companies. While larger companies can earmark billions of dollars for learning and development for massive workforce transformation, smaller companies are more fiscally constrained and don’t have the same resources. Midsize companies also often don’t have the scale to create a managerial class within their workforce — they need managers to be both managers and doers.
Midsize companies need to find solutions to develop more empathic managers without massive investments and continue to have those managers work rather than just manage. This will require organizations and their HR functions to develop their managers’ skills, awaken their mindsets to manage in new ways, and create the capacity across the organization to enable this shift. Here’s how to adopt a holistic strategy that invests in all three of those strategies.
Develop empathy skills through vulnerable conversation practice
Asking managers to lead with empathy can be intimidating. Many managers understand empathy conceptually but aren’t sure how to use it as a management tool: Are these questions too personal? How do I create a trusting relationship with my direct reports? Is caring acceptable at work? How do I talk about social justice?
It goes against deeply ingrained assumptions that we should keep work and life separate. Managers need opportunities to practice — and, crucially, room to make mistakes — in order to learn to lead with empathy. Unfortunately, only 52% of 31 learning and development leaders polled in May 2020 report that they’re increasing their focus on soft skills.
To build empathy, Zillow creates cohorts of managers across the organization who engage in rotating one-on-one conversations with their peers to troubleshoot current managerial challenges. These conversations offer frequent, psychologically safe opportunities to engage in vulnerable conversations focused on how managers can commit to specific actions to care for themselves, as well as support the well-being of their team.
Managers are able to practice their empathy with their peers, asking specific questions to understand their challenges and articulating their own circumstances in response to probes. Importantly, these types of conversations offer managers the opportunity to fail — and in a safe space — which is an opportunity rarely given to figures of authority. They also help managers feel less isolated by practicing empathy with peers, who are less likely to pass judgment.
Empower a new manager mindset by creating a network of support
According to our 2021 survey of 4,787 global employees, 75% of HR leaders from midsize companies agree that managers’ roles have expanded, yet roles and teams are not structured to support well-being.
Goodway Group, a fully remote company since 2007, knows that the best business results and purpose for work happens within teams and that distributed teams face greater challenges with communication and shared visibility. Goodway created a dedicated role, the team success partner, whose responsibilities include fostering trust and psychological safety and supporting team health. Managers work with team success partners to respond to the unique challenges distributed employees are facing; this includes facilitating remote psychologically safe remote conversationsand supporting new team member assimilation.
Managers’ motivation to be empathic increases when they have a support system that makes it clear that the burden isn’t theirs alone and when organizations invest in roles designed to support them.
Create manager capacity for empathy by optimizing reporting lines
Managers are already overburdened by the demands of the evolving work environment, and actions that drive empathy are time consuming. While 70% of midsize HR leaders agree managers are overwhelmed by their responsibilities, only 16% of midsize organizations have redefined the manager role to reduce the number of responsibilities on their plate.
Recognizing the pressure on managers to maintain team connectedness in a remote environment, leaders at Urgently, a digital roadside assistance company, rebalanced their managers’ workloads. When managers have a team size they can handle, they’re able to dedicate time to fostering deeper connections and responding with empathy. Moving to a hybrid environment creates complexity; one key part of the solution is to help managers prioritize their workload to focus on fewer, higher-impact relationships with individuals and teams.
Organizations that equip managers to be empathic by holistically addressing the three common barriers — skill, mindset, and capacity — will achieve outsized returns on performance in the post-Covid-19 world.
In the field of management, strategic management involves the formulation and implementation of the major goals and initiatives taken by an organization‘s managers on behalf of stakeholders, based on consideration of resources and an assessment of the internal and external environments in which the organization operates. Strategic management provides overall direction to an enterprise and involves specifying the organization’s objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve those objectives, and then allocating resources to implement the plans.
Academics and practicing managers have developed numerous models and frameworks to assist in strategic decision-making in the context of complex environments and competitive dynamics. Strategic management is not static in nature; the models often include a feedback loop to monitor execution and to inform the next round of planning.
creating “fit” by aligning company activities with one another to support the chosen strategy
Corporate strategy involves answering a key question from a portfolio perspective: “What business should we be in?” Business strategy involves answering the question: “How shall we compete in this business?”
Management theory and practice often make a distinction between strategic management and operational management, with operational management concerned primarily with improving efficiency and controlling costs within the boundaries set by the organization’s strategy.
Interorganizational relationships allow independent organizations to get access to resources or to enter new markets. Interorganizational relationships represent a critical lever of competitive advantage.
On the one hand, scholars drawing on organizational economics (e.g., transaction costs theory) have argued that firms use interorganizational relationships when they are the most efficient form comparatively to other forms of organization such as operating on its own or using the market. On the other hand, scholars drawing on organizational theory (e.g., resource dependence theory) suggest that firms tend to partner with others when such relationships allow them to improve their status, power, reputation, or legitimacy.
Athletes have a very complicated relationship with pain. For endurance athletes in particular, pain is an absolutely non-negotiable element of their competitive experience. You fear it, but you also embrace it. And then you try to understand it.
But pain isn’t like heart rate or lactate levels—things you can measure and meaningfully compare from one session to the next. Every painful experience is different, and the factors that contribute to those differences seem to be endless. A recent study in the Journal of Sports Sciences, from researchers in Iraq, Australia, and Britain, adds a new one to the list: viewing images of athletes in pain right before a cycling test led to higher pain ratings and worse performance than viewing images of athletes enjoying themselves.
That finding is reminiscent of a result I wrote about last year, in which subjects who were told that exercise increases pain perception experienced greater pain, while those told that exercise decreases pain perception experienced less pain. In that case, the researchers were studying pain perception after exercise rather than during it, trying to understand a phenomenon called exercise-induced hypoalgesia (which just means that you experience less pain after exercise).
This phenomenon has been studied for more than 40 years: one of the first attempts to unravel it was published in 1979 under the title “The Painlessness of the Long Distance Runner,” in which an Australian researcher named Garry Egger did a series of 15 runs over six months after being injected with either an opioid blocker called naloxone or a placebo. Running did indeed increase his pain threshold, but naloxone didn’t seem to make any difference, suggesting that endorphins—the body’s own opioids—weren’t responsible for the effect. (Subsequent research has been plentiful but not very conclusive, and it’s currently thought that both opioid and other mechanisms are responsible.)
But the very nature of pain—the fact that seeing an image of pain or being told that something will be painful can alter the pain you feel—makes it extremely tricky to study. If you put someone through a painful experiment twice, their experience the first time will inevitably color their perceptions the second time.
As a result, according to the authors of another new study, the only results you can really trust are from randomized trials in which the effects of exercise on pain are compared to the results of the same sequence of tests with no exercise—a standard that excludes much of the existing research.
The new study, published in the Journal of Pain by Michael Wewege and Matthew Jones of the University of New South Wales, is a meta-analysis that sets out to determine whether exercise-induced hypoalgesia is a real thing, and if so, what sorts of exercise induce it, and in whom. While there have been several previous meta-analyses on this topic, this one was restricted to randomized controlled trials, which meant that just 13 studies from the initial pool of 350 were included.
The good news is that, in healthy subjects, aerobic exercise did indeed seem to cause a large increase in pain threshold. Here’s a forest plot, in which dots to the left of the line indicate that an individual study saw increased pain tolerance after aerobic exercise, while dots to the right indicate that pain tolerance worsened.
The big diamond at the bottom is the overall combination of the data from those studies. It’s interesting to look at a few of the individual studies. The first dot at the top, for example, saw basically no change from a six-minute walk. The second and third dots, with the most positive results, involved 30 minutes of cycling and 40 minutes of treadmill running, respectively. The dosage probably matters, but there’s not enough data to draw definitive conclusions.
After that, things get a little tricker. Dynamic resistance exercise (standard weight-room stuff, for the most part) seems to have a small positive effect, but that’s based on just two studies. Isometric exercises (i.e. pushing or pulling without moving, or holding a static position), based on three studies, have no clear effect.
There are also three studies that look at subjects with chronic pain. This is where researchers are really hoping to see effects, because it’s very challenging to find ways of managing ongoing pain, especially now that the downsides of long-term opioid use are better understood. In this case, the subjects had knee osteoarthritis, plantar fasciitis, or tennis elbow, and neither dynamic nor isometric exercises seemed to help. There were no studies—or at least none that met the criteria for this analysis—that tried aerobic exercise for patients with chronic pain.
The main takeaway, for me, is how little we really know for sure about the relationship between exercise and pain perception. It seems likely that the feeling of dulled pain that follows a good run is real (and thus that you shouldn’t conclude that your minor injury has really been healed just because it feels okay when you finish).
Exercise-associated muscle cramps (EAMC) are defined as cramping (painful muscle spasms) during or immediately following exercise. Muscle cramps during exercise are very common, even in elite athletes. EAMC are a common condition that occurs during or after exercise, often during endurance events such as a triathlon or marathon.
Although EAMC are extremely common among athletes, the cause is still not fully understood because muscle cramping can occur as a result of many underlying conditions. Elite athletes experience cramping due to paces at higher intensities.The cause of exercise-associated muscle cramps is hypothesized to be due to altered neuromuscular control, dehydration, or electrolyte depletion.
It is widely believed that excessive sweating due to strenuous exercise can lead to muscle cramps. Deficiency of sodium and other electrolytes may lead to contracted interstitial fluid compartments, which may exacerbate the muscle cramping. According to this theory, the increased blood plasma osmolality from sweating sodium losses causes a fluid shift from the interstitial space to the intervascular space, which causes the interstitial fluid compartment to deform and contributes to muscle hyperexcitability and risk of spontaneous muscle activity.
The second hypothesis is altered neuromuscular control. In this hypothesis, it is suggested that cramping is due to altered neuromuscular activity. The proposed underlying cause of the altered neuromuscular control is due to fatigue. There are several disturbances, at various levels of the central and peripheral nervous system, and the skeletal muscle that contribute to cramping.
These disturbances can be described by a series of several key events. First and foremost, repetitive muscle exercise can lead to the development of fatigue due to one or more of the following: inadequate conditioning, hot and or humid environments, increased intensity, increased duration, and decreased supply of energy. Muscle fatigue itself causes increased excitatory afferent activity within the muscle spindles and decreased inhibitory afferent activity within the Golgi tendon.
The coupling of these events leads to altered neuromuscular control from the spinal cord. A cascade of events follow the altered neuromuscular control; this includes increased alpha-motor neuron activity in the spinal cord, which overloads the lower motor neurons, and increased muscle cell membrane activity. Thus, the resultant of this cascade is a muscle cramp.
With the acceleration of digital transformation in business, most CTOs, CIOs, and even middle management or analysts are now asking, “What’s next with data?” and what ongoing role will technology play in both digital and data transformations. Other questions that keep these individuals up at night include:
How can people throughout all organizational levels be more empowered to use data and help others make better decisions?
What prevents people from more deeply exploring and using data?
In what ways can analytics tools and methods help more people use data in the daily routine of business—asking questions, exploring hypotheses, and testing ideas?
With this in mind, plus observations and discussions with many Tableau customers and partners, it seems that today’s circumstances, behaviors, and needs make it the right time for predictive data analytics to help businesses and their people solve problems effectively.
Current realities and barriers to scale smarter decision-making with AI
With growing, diverse data sets being collected, the analytics use cases to transform data into valuable insights are growing just as fast. Today, a wide range of tools and focused teams specialize in uncovering data insights to inform decision-making, but where organizations struggle is striking the right balance between activating highly technical data experts and business teams with deep domain experience.
Until now, using artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and other statistical methods to solve business problems was mostly the domain of data scientists. Many organizations have small data science teams focused on specific, mission-critical, and highly scalable problems, but those teams usually have a long project list to handle.
At the same time though, there are a large number of business decisions that rely on experience, knowledge, and data—and that would greatly benefit from applying more advanced analysis techniques. People with domain knowledge and proximity to the business data could benefit greatly, if they had access to these techniques.
Instead, there’s currently a back-and-forth process of relying on data scientists and ML practitioners to build and deploy custom models—a cycle that lacks agility and the ability to iterate quickly. By the end, the data that the model was trained on could be stale and the process starts again. But organizations depend on business users to make key decisions daily that don’t rise to the priority level of their central data science team.
The opportunity to solve data science challenges
This is where there’s an opportunity to democratize data science capabilities, minimizing the trade-offs between extreme precision and control versus the time to insight—and the ability to take action on these insights. If we can give people tools or enhanced features to better apply predictive analytics techniques to business problems, data scientists can gain time back to focus on more complex problems. With this approach, business leaders can enable more teams to make data-driven decisions while continuing to keep up with the pace of business. Additional benefits gained from democratizing data science in this way include:
Reducing data exploration and prep work
Empowering analyst experts to deliver data science outputs at lower costs
Increasing the likelihood of producing successful models with more exploration of use cases by domain experts
Extending, automating, and accelerating analysis for business groups and domain experts
Reducing time and costs spent on deploying and integrating models
Promoting responsible use of data and AI with improved transparency and receiving guidance on how to minimize or address bias
Business scenarios that benefit from predictive analytics
There are several business scenarios where predictive capabilities can be immensely useful.
Sales and marketing departments can apply it to lead scoring, opportunity scoring, predicting time to close, and many other CRM-related cases. Manufacturers and retailers can use it to help with supply chain distribution and optimization, forecasting consumer demand, and exploring adding new products to their mix. Human resources can use it to assess the likelihood of candidates accepting an offer, and how they can adjust salary and benefits to meet a candidate’s values. And companies can use it to explore office space options and costs. These are just a few of the potential scenarios.
A solution to consider: Tableau Business Science
We are only at the beginning of exploring what predictive capabilities in the hands of people closely aligned with the business will unlock. AI and ML will continue to advance. More organizations, in a similar focus as Tableau, will also keep looking for techniques that can help people closest to the business see, understand, and use data in new ways to ask and answer questions, uncover insights, solve problems, and take action.
This spring Tableau introduced a new class of AI-powered analytics that gives predictive capabilities to people who are close to the business. In this next stage of expanded data exploration and use, we hope business leaders embrace data to help others make better decisions, and to provide transparent insight into the factors influencing those decisions.
When people can think with their data—when analysis is more about asking and answering questions than learning complex software or skills—that’s when human potential will be unleashed, leading to amazing outcomes. Learn more about Tableau Business Science, what this technology gives business teams, and the value it delivers to existing workflows.
Olivia Nix is a Senior Manager of Product Marketing at Tableau. She leads a team focused on the use of AI and ML in analytics and engagement, including how to use technology to enable more people in organizations to make data-driven decisions. Olivia has been at Tableau for four years where she has worked closely with development teams on new product launches. Prior to Tableau, Olivia worked as an analyst at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change (now C2ES) and Johnson Controls. She has her MBA from the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
In business, predictive models exploit patterns found in historical and transactional data to identify risks and opportunities. Models capture relationships among many factors to allow assessment of risk or potential associated with a particular set of conditions, guiding decision-making for candidate transactions.
The defining functional effect of these technical approaches is that predictive analytics provides a predictive score (probability) for each individual (customer, employee, healthcare patient, product SKU, vehicle, component, machine, or other organizational unit) in order to determine, inform, or influence organizational processes that pertain across large numbers of individuals, such as in marketing, credit risk assessment, fraud detection, manufacturing, healthcare, and government operations including law enforcement.
Predictive analytics is an area of statistics that deals with extracting information from data and using it to predict trends and behavior patterns. The enhancement of predictive web analytics calculates statistical probabilities of future events online. Predictive analytics statistical techniques include data modeling, machine learning, AI, deep learning algorithms and data mining.Often the unknown event of interest is in the future, but predictive analytics can be applied to any type of unknown whether it be in the past, present or future.
For example, identifying suspects after a crime has been committed, or credit card fraud as it occurs.The core of predictive analytics relies on capturing relationships between explanatory variables and the predicted variables from past occurrences, and exploiting them to predict the unknown outcome. It is important to note, however, that the accuracy and usability of results will depend greatly on the level of data analysis and the quality of assumptions.
Predictive analytics is often defined as predicting at a more detailed level of granularity, i.e., generating predictive scores (probabilities) for each individual organizational element. This distinguishes it from forecasting. For example, “Predictive analytics—Technology that learns from experience (data) to predict the future behavior of individuals in order to drive better decisions.”In future industrial systems, the value of predictive analytics will be to predict and prevent potential issues to achieve near-zero break-down and further be integrated into prescriptive analytics for decision optimization.
On Thursday evening Thomas Peterffy, the billionaire founder of Interactive Brokers, took stock of a day unlike any in his over fifty-year trading career. An army of novice traders had united on social media site Reddit and relentlessly bought stock and options in ailing video game retailer GameStop on trading applications such as Robinhood, driving its stock from $20 at the start of the year to nearly $500 that afternoon.
The surge cost Wall Street investors almost $20 billion in mark-to-market losses, and Peterffy’s brokerage spent the day issuing thousands of margin calls on its customers’ bearish GameStop bets, forcing them to realize losses. During the trading day, Interactive Brokers, Robinhood and other online brokerages also restricted some trading in GameStop, movie theater chain AMC Entertainment, BlackBerry and other stocks that were part of the pump. The move, they later said, was to conserve cash as their clearinghouses demanded money to cover potential customer losses amid the fervent speculation.
At Interactive Brokers, Peterffy estimated that had the firm not closed out trades, its customers were sitting on $500 million in losses. Cash got tight at Robinhood, the Silicon Valley unicorn that had raised billions in venture capital and unleashed the speculative frenzy, introducing millions of young traders to frictionless stock and options trading. It drew down hundreds of millions in its credit lines and raised $1 billion in new emergency cash as its clearinghouse reserves rose tenfold.
Peterffy went to bed that night worried of a market collapse. “If the broker has to pay more money to the clearinghouse for customer losses than he has, then the broker is bankrupt. And when one broker goes bankrupt, usually a few others do too,” he told Forbes late on Thursday evening. “So, I’m worried about a systemic failure.”
The episode of millennial and zoomer-aged Reddit traders taking on Wall Street’s wealthiest and winning has turned into the David versus Goliath tale of the age of inequality. There are some big winners from GameStop, young investors who’ve already taken massive profits that can be used to pay off student debt, or build savings. For many onlookers, the humiliation of Wall Street is icing on the cake.
Despite the wry cheers, GameStop’s surge is surfacing a market fraught with leverage, unprecedented speculation and superficial analysis at almost every corner, exposing enormous risks. The pain started with the hedge funds that lost big, but as risk bubbles over, it will have reverberations in the broader market (see story).
“What’s been happening really is a reflection of the quality of analysis, the quality of work, the quality of input that is coming to Wall Street,” says billionaire investing legend Michael Steinhardt. “And it’s a sorry tale, that something like this can happen and it’s obviously something that will have a bad ending for people who are in a position to afford it least.”
Long-short equity hedge funds generated big gains in 2020 as they bet on the digital companies that thrived during the Coronavirus pandemic, and hedged their rising portfolios by crowding into bets against troubled retailers like GameStop. But they entered the new year complacent.
“When I looked at these shorts, I thought who the heck would be short movie theaters, bricks and mortar retailers and airlines when we’re just beginning to clear bottlenecks in vaccine distribution,” says Barry Knapp, managing partner of Ironsides Macroeconomics. GameStop entered 2021 as one of the most shorted stocks in the world, though positive changes were afoot inside the company as online sales surged and customers lined up outside its stores to buy new PlayStation consoles. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has been flooding the market with liquidity and a second round of stimulus checks hit bank accounts at the end of the year, a risk hedge funds should have sidestepped. The complacency was exploited by the Reddit army, to devastating effect.
A hedge fund named Melvin Capital, backed by Billionaire Steven A. Cohen of Point72, was the biggest victim, dropping 53% in January according to the Wall Street Journal, in part due to its GameStop short. One of Melvin’s mistakes was disclosing a put position against GameStop (a bet shares would fall) on its public filings, which gave the Redditors a target to rally around. It could have done the trades over-the-counter, remaining discreet, or closed them. Last week, Melvin required a $2.75 billion infusion from Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management and Citadel, owned by billionaire Ken Griffin, due to its losses.
Other big funds were hit hard. “People are telling me that the pain is anywhere from down 10% on the low end, which is Steve Cohen, to down 30% on the high-end,” says hedge fund insider Anthony Scaramucci of Skybridge. Large funds swept up in the losses include Cohen’s Point72 and highly-regarded funds like D1 Capital, Holocene Capital, Viking Global and Ken Griffin’s Citadel.
These funds may have mistakenly taken a piping hot stock market as a sign of genius, pressing their trade too far. “Tech stocks today are historically overvalued. On many metrics, they’re higher than they were at the peak of the dot-com bubble,” says Kevin Smith, chief investment officer of $200 million in assets Crescat Capital.
Fueling soaring valuations is perhaps the biggest speculative frenzy witnessed in a century, thanks to frictionless and zero-cost stock and options trading by Robinhood. Single stock call option trading has hit new records. Junky GameStop, not Apple or Microsoft, was by far the most traded company in America at times last week. Daily option premiums traded in the video game retailer surged to nearly $10 billion, more than the entire S&P 500 Index.
It’s all thanks to online brokerage Robinhood, which introduced millions of young traders to these dangerous derivative financial products and adeptly built a platform that encourages video game-like speculation. While Robinhood purports to democratize investing, behind the scenes it makes money feeding customers order to Wall Street’s savviest traders (see story). Giant market making firms like Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial have been more than happy to pay for the flow of orders coming from Robinhood, earning record revenues executing the trades in 2020. Time and again, however, the construct has proven unable to handle the rampant speculation it encourages.
For the past year, Robinhood has crashed at the apex of market activity and a new problem emerged Thursday. Because Robinhood onboards clients with margin accounts so they can begin trading instantaneously, it’s required to post collateral for its traders’ activity. On Thursday, the activity was so large, concentrated and speculative, Robinhood’s clearinghouses demanded extra collateral, creating a cash crunch that led to the trading freeze. Robinhood then went running to its venture capital backers for a $1 billion cash infusion.
Lawmakers and celebrities came to the Redditors defense. When trading was restricted in GameStop, just as they could smell hedge fund blood in the water, both New York Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Texas Senator Ted Cruz demanded investigations. Comedian Jon Stewart lamented, “this is bull**it. The Redditors aren’t cheating, they’re joining a party Wall Street insiders have been enjoying for years…maybe sue them for copyright infringement instead!!”
GameStop’s rise began with reasonable analysis, but morphed into an arbitrage that exploits free options trading. Ultimately, it has revealed a new force in financial markets that’s crashing Wall Street’s clubby party, with hard to predict consequences. “Frictionless and highly gamified environments ignite the basest instincts of human nature,” says Paul Rowady of Alphacution Research. “Lubricating people to forego whatever discipline and self-control that they might otherwise have is the intended goal of these environments. And, with sustained exposure comes indelible impacts.”
GameStop’s ascent started in the summer of 2019 when Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager lionized for spotting the housing bubble in “The Big Short,” uncovered his next great trade in GameStop. Burry bought two million shares and recommended an obvious arbitrage. “GameStop could pull off perhaps the most consequential and shareholder-friendly buyback in stock market history with elegance and stealth,” Burry told the company after disclosing his position. “Mr. Market is putting this one right in your hands,” said Burry. Within months GameStop spent $200 million to retire 38% of its heavily shorted stock.
It seeped into social media. In September 2019, Keith Gill, a 34-year financial advisor in Massachusetts, got into the GameStop trade, paying $53,566.04 to buy 1,000 call options on the company and posting his position to Reddit on Sept. 8, 2019 under the pseudonym u/DeepF__ingValue, which eventually became a sensation with millions of followers. By July 2020, he was publishing videos to YouTube under the pseudonym Roaring Kitty, presenting in kitten-themed tee shirts his detailed analysis on why GameStop could gain big if the market grew more optimistic on its sales as a new PlayStation console was released. Others jumped in. Ryan Cohen, the billionaire founder of online pet food seller Chewy, bought 10% of GameStop, and joined its board in the fall, hoping to bolster its digital platform.
With positive change afoot, Reddit posters uncovered the potential for a squeeze due to GameStop’s heavy short interest and the interplay of options trades on platforms like Robinhood and their execution by market makers like Citadel Securities. Because call options are the right to buy 100 shares of stock at a specified price for a specified period of time, the market maker executing the trade (Citadel Securities, for example) hedges itself by buying actual shares.
If enough buying activity could be organized, the Redditors realized, demand for GameStop shares would far exceed available supply, pushing prices far higher. Eventually, hedge funds short GameStop would be forced to close or cover their positions and buy GameStop shares at higher prices, adding even more upward pressure to the stock. It would be similar to the organized run on shares of United Copper, which caused the Panic of 1907, only in a digital world.
The dynamics pushed GameStop up almost 2,000% in 2020, to a $22 billion market value. Had GameStop trading not been halted, it might have ripped far higher, and it may yet.
“It’s not like everyone is an idiot just playing with their money,” says Taylor Hamilton, 23, an IT worker who has made well over $100,000 in profits and paid his off student loans since starting to trade options on online brokerages like Robinhood in March 2020. “We understood what was going on and we understood how to take advantage of the moment.”
The key for the Reddit army is to get out before the music inevitably stops. “We’re in a naturally occuring Ponzi,” says Ben Inker, head of asset allocation at GMO, “The market needs to draw in more and more money to keep this afloat. Eventually you don’t have enough and it collapses.”
For some, the squeeze is the outcome of a decade of encouragement of risk taking. Signs of excess are everywhere, from record Spac issuance to red hot initial public offerings that double or triple in a matter of days. “Policymakers are essentially telling us as investors that the prudent and responsible thing to do in this cycle is to be irresponsible and imprudent. These guys on Reddit figured it out,” says Marko Papic, chief strategist at Clocktower Group.
Things may yet get crazier, and the possibility of a debacle that hits the portfolios of index fund investors seems inevitable. As GameStop and other “meme” stocks squeezed higher, hedge funds liquidated their portfolios en masse, causing a sharp weekly drop in the S&P 500 Index. With hedge funds squeezed to the hilt, brokerages low on cash, and millions of investors maintaining enormously speculative positions, risks of bad surprises abound.
“Where there’s leverage, there’s susceptibility to squeezes and tails,” says Mark Spitznagel, the head of Universa Investments. “The entire marketplace is leveraged in an unprecedented way right now.”
The biggest immediate issue is that the squeeze is far from over. “I keep hearing that most of the GameStop shorts have been covered. Totally untrue,” says Ihor Dusaniwsky, of market data firm S3 Partners. “Brokers have been telling me as soon as some shorts are covering there is a line of new short sellers looking to short GameStop at these high stock price levels in anticipation of a pullback.”
Short interest in GameStop is now $11.20 billion with 57.83 million shares shorted, or 113% of its tradable shares, near record highs, according to Dusaniwsky. Shares shorted have declined by just 8%, despite the billions already lost.
“These stocks could be pushed further,” worries Peterffy of Interactive Brokers, “It is a very dangerous, but very attractive game for both sides and the positions may increase accordingly… SCARY.”
—With reporting from Eliza Haverstock, Halah Touryalai, Christopher Helman, Sergei Klebnikov, Matt Schifrin and Jon Ponciano
I’m a staff writer and associate editor at Forbes, where I cover finance and investing. My beat includes hedge funds, private equity, fintech, mutual funds, mergers, and banks. I’m a graduate of Middlebury College and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and I’ve worked at TheStreet and Businessweek. Before becoming a financial scribe, I was a member of the fateful 2008 analyst class at Lehman Brothers. Email thoughts and tips to firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow me on Twitter at @antoinegara
GameStop has captivated Wall Street’s attention. The stock’s rise has been otherworldly. But the obsession isn’t just with the rally, it’s with who’s making money off of it. Legions of individual investors — regular, everyday people — gathered on social platforms like Reddit and decided to send GameStop stock, as they would say, to the moon. This week, GameStop shares soared 400%, a hedge fund had to get bailed out, and online trading platforms had to restricting trading on GameStop and other hot stocks. Here’s how the GameStop saga played out, and what’s next as lawmakers turn their sights on the story that took over Wall Street this week. »