Top 50 Transportation and Logistics Companies

http://www.joc.com/international-logistics/top-50-global-transportation-and-logistics-companies_20131115.html



2012 Rank Parent Company Head Office Country

1  DHL Germany

2 UPS USA

3 FedEx USA

4 A.P. Moller-Maersk Denmark Ocean

5 DB Schenker1 Germany 3PL

6 NYK Group Japan Ocean

7 Kuehne+Nagel Switzerland 3PL

8 Mediterranean Shipping Co. Switzerland Ocean

9 Union Pacific USA Rail

10 Burlington Northern Santa Fe USA Rail

11 MOL Japan Ocean

12 CMA CGM France Ocean

13 Nippon Express Japan 3PL

14 Yamato Holdings Japan Parcel

15 China COSCO Holdings China Ocean

16 "K" Line Japan Ocean

17 SNCF Geodis1 France 3PL

18 CSX USA Rail

19 Bolloré France 3PL

20 Norfolk Southern USA Rail

21 Sagawa (SG Holdings) Japan Parcel

22 Canadian National Canada Rail

23 C.H. Robinson Worldwide2 USA 3PL

24 Neptune Orient Line Singapore Ocean

25 Hanjin Shipping Korea Ocean

26 TNT1 Netherlands Parcel

27 CEVA Logistics1 Netherlands 3PL

28 Toll Holdings Australia 3PL

29 Hapag-Lloyd Germany Ocean

30 DSV1 Denmark 3PL

31 Sinotrans China 3PL

32 DPD / GeoPost1 France Parcel

33 Hyundai Merchant Marine Korea Ocean

34 Panalpina1 Switzerland 3PL

35 Hamburg Süd Germany Ocean

36 Hitachi Transport Japan 3PL

37 Orient Overseas International China Ocean

38 Expeditors International USA 3PL

39 Canadian Pacific Canada Rail

40 Dachser1 Germany 3PL

41 Con-way USA Trucking

42 China Shipping Container Lines China Ocean

43 J.B. Hunt USA Trucking / Intermodal

44 Norbert Dentressangle France 3PL

45 YRC Worldwide USA Trucking

46 Rhenus3 Germany 3PL

47 Agility Kuwait 3PL

48 GEFCO4 France 3PL

49 UTi Worldwide USA 3PL

50 Yang Ming Marine Transport Taiwan Ocean

3 HOURS Best Romantic Relaxing music | Wonderful Piano | - Background - ...

An Evening with il Divo Live in Barcelona 2009

Founder of Alibaba Jack Ma Interview by Charlie Rose

100 Most Sustainable Companies, 2014

The World’s 100 Most Sustainable Companies, 2014:

Rank Company name Country Headquarters GICS Sector Overall Score
======================================
1 Westpac Banking Corporation Australia Financials 76.5%

2 Biogen Idec Inc United States Health Care 75.3%

3 Outotec OYJ Finland Industrials 74.2%

4 Statoil ASA Norway Energy 74.0%

5 Dassault Systemes SA France Information Technology 74.0%

6 Neste Oil OYJ Finland Energy 69.2%

7 Novo Nordisk A/S Denmark Health Care 68.8%

8 Adidas AG Germany Consumer Discretionary 68.0%

9 Umicore SA Belgium Materials 67.8%

10 Schneider Electric SA France Industrials 66.5%

11 Cisco Systems Inc United States Information Technology 66.2%

12 BASF SE Germany Materials 66.2%

13 Bayerische Motoren Werke AG Germany Consumer Discretionary 65.9%

14 Aeroports de Paris France Industrials 65.8%

15 ASML Holding NV Netherlands Information Technology 65.4%

16 The Sage Group PLC Britain Information Technology 65.3%

17 Keppel Land Limited Singapore Financials 65.1%

18 UCB SA Belgium Health Care 65.1%

19 Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited Australia Financials 64.9%

20 Sigma-Aldrich Corporation United States Materials 64.7%

21 Life Technologies Corporation United States Health Care 64.2%

22 Tim Hortons Inc Canada Consumer Discretionary 63.6%

23 Natura Cosmeticos SA Brazil Consumer Staples 63.3%

24 Bombardier Inc Canada Industrials 63.0%

25 Commonwealth Bank of Australia Australia Financials 62.4%

26 Centrica PLC Britain Utilities 62.2%

27 Siemens AG Germany Industrials 61.9%

28 Croda International PLC Britain Materials 61.9%

29 StarHub Ltd Singapore Telecommunication Services 61.6%

30 Shinhan Financial Group Co Ltd South Korea Financials 60.8%

31 Hang Seng Bank Ltd Hong Kong Financials 60.4%

32 Stockland Australia Financials 60.2%

33 Banco Espirito Santo SA Portugal Financials 60.2%

34 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd South Korea Information Technology 60.1%

35 Wolters Kluwer NV Netherlands Consumer Discretionary 60.0%

36 Geberit AG Switzerland Industrials 59.9%

37 Monsanto Company United States Materials 59.2%

38 Scania AB Sweden Industrials 58.9%

39 City Developments Ltd Singapore Financials 58.6%

40 Vivendi SA France Telecommunication Services 58.5%

41 Teck Resources Limited Canada Materials 58.3%

42 Swiss Re AG Switzerland Financials 58.2%

43 Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc United States Consumer Staples 57.3%

44 SAP AG Germany Information Technology 57.1%

45 L’Oreal SA France Consumer Staples 57.1%

46 Atlas Copco AB Sweden Industrials 55.9%

47 Duke Energy Corporation United States Utilities 55.8%

48 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV Netherlands Industrials 55.7%

49 Bank of Montreal Canada Financials 55.6%

50 Motorola Solutions Inc United States Information Technology 55.4%

51 Royal Dutch Shell PLC Netherlands Energy 55.2%

52 Cenovus Energy Inc Canada Energy 55.1%

53 Suncor Energy Inc Canada Energy 54.9%

54 Prologis Inc United States Financials 54.9%

55 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Sweden Information Technology 54.8%

56 Galp Energia SGPS SA Portugal Energy 54.6%

57 Johnson & Johnson United States Health Care 54.6%

58 CapitaLand Limited Singapore Financials 54.3%

59 General Electric Company United States Industrials 54.3%

60 Daimler AG Germany Consumer Discretionary 54.2%

61 Agilent Technologies Inc United States Health Care 54.1%

62 Acciona SA Spain Utilities 54.0%

63 Electrocomponents PLC Britain Information Technology 54.0%

64 H&M Hennes & Mauritz Sweden Consumer Discretionary 54.0%

65 Daiwa House Industry Co Ltd Japan Financials 54.0%

66 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd Japan Industrials 53.4%

67 Intact Financial Corporation Canada Financials 53.4%

68 Weyerhaeuser Company United States Financials 53.0%

69 Eisai Co Ltd Japan Health Care 52.8%

70 TELUS Corporation Canada Telecommunication Services 52.5%

71 BG Group PLC Britain Energy 52.5%

72 Staples Inc United States Consumer Discretionary 52.3%

73 BCE Inc Canada Telecommunication Services 52.1%

74 Nissan Motor Co Ltd Japan Consumer Discretionary 51.6%

75 Enbridge Inc Canada Energy 51.1%

76 Encana Corporation Canada Energy 50.9%

77 Ricoh Co Ltd Japan Information Technology 50.5%

78 EMC Corporation United States Information Technology 50.5%

79 Sun Life Financial Inc Canada Financials 50.3%

80 Storebrand ASA Norway Financials 50.3%

81 London Stock Exchange Group PLC Britain Financials 50.2%

82 LG Electronics Inc South Korea Consumer Discretionary 49.9%

83 Husqvarna AB Sweden Consumer Discretionary 49.8%

84 Johnson Controls Inc United States Consumer Discretionary 49.6%

85 British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC Britain Consumer Discretionary 49.5%

86 Nestle SA Switzerland Consumer Staples 49.2%

87 Alcatel-Lucent France Information Technology 49.1%

88 Hess Corporation United States Energy 48.9%

89 Muenchener Rueckversicherungs AG Germany Financials 48.2%

90 The Toronto-Dominion Bank Canada Financials 47.9%

91 Intesa Sanpaolo SpA Italy Financials 47.8%

92 Wesfarmers Ltd Australia Consumer Staples 47.2%

93 Unilever PLC Britain Consumer Staples 47.1%

94 Roche Holding AG Switzerland Health Care 46.9%

95 BRF – Brasil Foods SA Brazil Consumer Staples 46.6%

96 Campbell Soup Company United States Consumer Staples 46.5%

97 Danone SA France Consumer Staples 45.7%

98 Kesko OYJ Finland Consumer Staples 45.7%

99 Novartis AG Switzerland Health Care 45.4%

100 Essilor International, Compagnie Générale d’Optique France Health Care 42.4%

=======================
Source: Corporate Knights

Peter Lynch Fidelity Investments

Some of the Most Profitable Companies Across 10 Sectors

PulteGroup Inc. (PHM)  Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Consumer Discretionary 46.50% 
Iconix Brand Group Inc. (ICON) New York Consumer Discretionary 36.10% 
Priceline Group Inc. (PCLN) Norwalk, Conn. Consumer Discretionary 27.96% 
Philip Morris International Inc. (PM) New York Consumer Staples 26.60% 
Altria Group Inc. (MO) Richmond, Va. Consumer Staples 24.31% 
Brown-Forman Corp. Class B (BF-B) Louisville, Ky. Consumer Staples 22.12% 
Gulfport Energy Corp. (GPOR) Oklahoma City Energy 51.83% 
Approach Resources Inc. (AREX) Forth Worth, Texas Energy 30.05%
 Atwood Oceanics Inc. (ATW) Houston Energy 28.92% 
Capstead Mortgage Corp. (CMO) Dallas Financials 76.49%
LTC Properties Inc. (LTC) Westlake Village, Calif. Financials 56.54% 
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) Pembroke, Bermuda Financials 54.02% 
Gilead Sciences Inc. (GILD) Foster City, Calif. Health Care 42.64%
 Anika Therapeutics Inc. (ANIK) Bedford, Mass. Health Care 36.20% 
Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (EW) Irvine, Calif. Health Care 35.70% 
Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL) Atlanta Industrials 27.84% 
Union Pacific Corp. (UNP) Omaha, Neb. Industrials 20.58% 
ITT Corp. (ITT) White Plains, N.Y. Industrials 19.81% 
Verisign Inc. (VRSN) Reston, Va. Information Technology 57.43% 
Visa Inc. Class A (XNYS:V) Foster City, Calif. Information Technology 44.65% 
MasterCard Inc. Class A (MA) Purchase, N.Y. Information Technology 37.14% 
CF Industries Holdings Inc. (CF) Deerfield, Ill. Materials 31.44% 
Royal Gold Inc. (RGLD) Denver Materials 26.41% 
Sigma-Aldrich Corp. (SIAL) St. Louis Materials 18.59% 
AT&T Inc. (XNYS:T) Dallas Telecommunications 13.75% 
Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) New York Telecommunications 12.50% 
Atlantic Tele-Network Inc. (ATNI)   Beverly, Mass. Telecommunications 11.78%
Aqua America Inc. (WTR) Bryn Mawr, Pa. Utilities 26.92% 
OGE Energy Corp. (OGE)   Oklahoma City Utilities 17.59%
Questar Corp. (STR) Salt Lake City Utilities 14.46% 

Warren Buffet On Investment Strategy | Full Interview Fortune MPW

Salute to this guy!

真正财富的本质定义

战略层面，真正的财富是对一种稳定发展的生产关系和社会结构的逐渐变大比例的占有。这里的表达有个关键，对一种稳定发展的生产关系和社会结构的占有是财富（这种财富已经超越了看得见摸得着的物质财富），但逐渐变大比例的占有才是真正的财富，这里有持续智力的投入，必须要把现有资源、运行和人才结合起来，实际上是一种机制。

巴菲特的投资理念实际上就是如此。巴菲特买入并持有，以大股东的身份改造公司运营并且整合行业，辅以自然人口增长的预期、自然地域扩展和基本衣食住行的需求增长以及生产和消费模式的进化，形成对生产关系和社会结构的逐渐扩大的有利占有。这种投资基本是零风险。值得一提的是科技投入不在此列，但科技投入的结果，比如导致生产和消费模式的进化在此列，而这种投资略去了科技投入的巨大风险。所以，科技公司即使赔钱也很有价值是有其策略原因和意义的。

一个典型的案例：军队是100%的负回报投资，账面回报为零，而投入巨大，是大国和像样国家的最大单项政府开支。但几乎所有的高科技都是军事研发首先需要和获得的，这表明科技投入即使没有账面回报，也价值巨大。

如果对潜在不稳定生产关系和社会结构进行投资，则要看能不能对不稳定进行定向控制，或者在不稳定的发展过程和形成结果时，能够有实力保护已有利益或将来的利益。从国家利益上来说，现在只有美国及其盟国（英、德、日、加、澳），俄罗斯和法国能做到这样，实质上是以科技和军事做后盾，当然政治运行（表现为资源配置和智力发挥）也不能太差劲。这已经超越了投资理论模型的边界条件界定，但这正是发达国家对弱小国家剥削的本质优势和原因。

比如，中国在非洲经营多年，而那里是法国的固有地盘，中法两国有杯葛，有时就是因为非洲的资源占有。中国在非洲有大量的投入，比如无偿援助医院和铁路等。以利比亚为例，中国在利比亚有大量的建筑订单和石油份额，然而，利比亚一政变或陷入目前的动荡，中国所有的曾经努力都付诸东流；这并不是个别现象，以前伊拉克买入中国军火的巨额帐单是要以将来多年向中国出口石油来偿付，实际上是分期易货，但萨达姆政权一被推翻，这些债务都成了泡影。所以，中国对这两个国家曾经的物质或资源占有都不是真正的财富，其两个原因是：1，在其稳定期间，没有能控制其社会和经济结构的运行；2，不稳定时，没有实力保证当前的帐面利益，甚至没有能力预见这种潜在不稳定性，当然更谈不上控制。

战术和个人层面，在任何事情都是投资的社会里，比如美国，只有有效的正现金流是真正的财富。对工薪阶层来说，就是Job Security；对实业运营者来说，就是行业的可预期稳定发展。所有其它都是负资产或者消费。比如，汽车就占据着常人较大一笔支出，包括油费，维修保养费，保险、折旧、牌照和罚单等等。常误以为资产的房地产，实际上也是消费，即使是全额付清了的房子，也是消费，因为还是有地税、保险、维护保养和折旧，而地皮的增值是不定的，需要专业打理能力。在这个意义上，一般商业意义上的公司，只要能产生正现金流，即使不赚钱，也有相当的价值（因为是生产关系和社会结构的稳定部分，比如，解决了大量就业）。P/E理论是错误的，至少是有大缺陷的，只具有纸面的模型价值。 

旧的殖民主义方法是把被殖民国生产的物质财富用垄断性低价运回殖民国。比如，英国把印度的香料和南美、太平洋、大西洋、印度洋岛国生产的糖以低价运回。现在，则更多的是利用金融和人才的系统性优势全面控制被殖民国的经济结构和社会运行。比如，美国收购并整合中国的油脂压榨生产线、肉食饲养生产线、引诱中国使用外资建立依赖出口的低级加工基地，在南美种植大豆，在非洲种植咖啡等等。其核心理念和优势是金融基础上的定价权，科技优势和商业积累带来的高效生产体系以及发挥其金融货币政策话语权优势的、并成功洗脑各国领袖和精英令他们认可的全球化理念（这一点上，经济全球化对应政治民主化，都是为新时代殖民服务的）。

美国的真正财富是一种运行机制，涵盖了智力（全球人才的发现、培养、吸引和利用），全球自然资源占有、整合和有效利用，科技研发在军用和民用两方面的低成本有效产出和转化为生产力，国家利益、财团利益、精英个人利益的清晰界定和分配以及在此基础上解决与大比例国内普通民众利益冲突的低成本Controllable Self-evolving政治体系（低成本：不会造成社会动荡）。

From http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/47609/201103/15447.html

Many ways to become a billionaire

The top 5 Berkshire holdings are:

1. Wells Fargo (WFC): 22.6%
2. Coca-Cola (KO): 15.8%
3. American Express (AXP): 13.4%
4. International Business Machines (IBM): 11.8%
5. Wal-Mart (WMT): 4.1%

[ZT] Old School Value

George Soros - The Alchemy of Finance Audiobook Full

Clorox

A rational assessment of Amazon [ZT]

A "guess" on the future of Amazon:

AMZN will some day become profitable but large enough profits to justify the current market cap (roughly 15 billion a year) are far into the future - if ever. The time value of money will make this a questionable investment looking forward even if they do achieve that level. There is a very substantial chance that they will become profitable at a level of more like about 3 billion a year after a few years (which is 3% of 100 billion in revenue - very good for a retailer) which would only justify 20% of their current market capitalization. That is my "rough" prediction. I don't think they will ever reach Walmart's revenue because they will never be a dominant purveyor of groceries and commodity goods - shipping costs are just too high to compete with Walmart's much more efficient distribution system - although Amazon may dominate higher value and niche items. Amazon's other endeavors - streaming music, AWS, Kindle, phones, etc. - one or more of these may get traction but I would not count on any of them - the competition is awesome and brutal and I don't see any inherent advantage for Amazon. I can make decent a case of why each one of these will play "second fiddle" to other companies and that is worrisome.

Therefore Amazon is not currently a compelling investment going forward - it is a very risky investment with a highly uncertain future. I can invest in a company like MAIN which is paying a 6% dividend and has a track record of capital growth. Investments like that - and there are plenty more to consider - and having a portfolio of them so that no single investment is more than about 4% of the total - has served me very well through the decades. One can make plenty of money without taking undue risks.

Fourth Law of Motion

Fourth Law of Motion: 
                    
                  for investors as a whole, return decreases as motion increases.

Nordstrom Rack

Buying stock is like getting clothes from Nordstrom Rack. The moment you walked into the showroom, you start to search for the items shipped from Nordstrom Department stores's shelfs, ignore the ones from special "nordstrom rack lines", and find some to try on. If fits, it is a good buy! You will enjoy the new clothes for many years to come; in stock term, profit will come in couple years.

This is what Buffet said,

"Whether socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down."

About a business's economic moat, Buffet's angle --- "for a company to have a truly wide moat, its product must directly cater to basic human preferences that will endure for decades". Here, "basic" is the keyword. So, no paradigm shifts in customer preferences.

A Conversation With Warren Buffett (Extended)