It doesn’t take much to look good but one needs to know what features of your face can be hidden or highlighted to give that final stunning effect. Makeup Expert Ishika Tanej, tells you what to do and what not to – depending on your face shape. Oval Shape – As this shape is well-balanced, just use blusher and highlighter to enhance the features.Blusher – Apply the blusher to the ‘apple of the cheeks’ and along the cheekbones.Highlighter – Blend a highlighter above the cheekbone near the outer corner of the eye. Also Read – ‘Playing Jojo was emotionally exhausting’Round Shape – Adding length to the face and slenderising the jawline is required for the round face.Shading – Suck in your cheeks and see where the hollows appear. To slenderize the face, sweep the darker shade of powder into the hollows and down to the chin line. Blusher – To slenderise the face, apply blusher slightly under the cheekbones and blends towards the ear. This will make the cheeks more defined. To add an illusion of length, apply a bit of blush to your chin and blend well. Also Read – Leslie doing new comedy special with NetflixLong/ Oblong Shape – To reduce the length of the face, an illusion of width is required for a long face.Shading – To shorten the face, apply a deeper shade of foundation across the jaw and chin and on the top of the forehead. Apply a little bronzer on the chin and blend well.Blusher – Apply extra blusher on the apple of the cheeks to bring out the cheekbones.Square Shape – Softening the wide corners of the face and adding an illusion of length is required for square face. Shaping – To soften the square angle of the face, sweep the darker shade along the outer edge of the jaw to under the ear. To soften the forehead, shade around the hairline at the upper corners of the square.Blusher – Keep blusher light and soft – you don’t need hard definition. Place the blusher on the ‘apple of the cheek’ and blend softly out towards the hairline, following the cheekbone – this will soften the face and make it appear more oval.Rectangular Shape – Cutting extra width from all corners of the face and make it appear more oval is what you should aim for. Shading – By using a darker shade of the foundation cut the edges on the forehead and jawline. Blusher – Apply the blusher on the apple of your cheeks towards the hairline in a straight sweep. Heart-shaped – Narrowing the width of the forehead and adding width to the chin and jaw line are required for a heart-shaped face.Shading – Shade the face at the temples to narrow the top part of the face. Avoid any shading in the hollows of the cheeks or the lower part of the face.Blusher – Apply the blusher to the apples of the cheeks – this will bring the focus up to the centre of the face, away from the chin.Highlighter – Apply the highlighter to the chin and around the jawbone – this will help to balance the face. Inverted – Triangle Shape – Giving an illusion of length and adding width to the forehead are required for a triangular face. Shading – A deep colour foundation should be applied on the sides to minimise the width of the jaw and to achieve a slender look,Blusher – Apply blusher to the cheekbones and blend towards the jaw line.Pear Shape – Here we aim at making small forehead appear broader and giving more oval look to the face. Shading – Use a darker shade of foundation to cut width from your jawline. On forehead, apply a lighter shade on the edges to add width. Blusher – Add volume to your cheeks by applying blusher on your cheeks that matches your skin tone with an angular sweep.
Titled, Anushakti Atma the exhibition is set up by State Atomic Energy Corporation of Russia – Rosatom and the Rossotrudnichestvo Mission.The exhibition consists of four blocks telling about the nuclear power plant at Kudankulam Site, Rosatom international experience, describing elements of the NPP and stages of NPP construction, the fields of the nuclear technologies application. Exposition will also provide the information on the contribution the NPP makes to the environmental protection. Special emphasis is made on the photographs from the recent torch relay on the North Pole.The photos demonstrate the positive influence of the environment friendly nuclear technologies. The special serial of photos is dedicated to the construction of the Kudankulam NPP – a key project of the Russian-Indian cooperation which will soon start generating electricity for the South Indian region.When: Till 6 DecemberWhere: Russian Centre of Science and Culture
Kolkata: Debashis Sen, Additional Chief Secretary, IT&E, who is also the chairman of the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (WBHIDCO) announced that the much-awaited project of Snehodiya, a proposed habitat for senior citizens in New Town would be inaugurated by Firhad Hakim, the Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Minister, on June 25. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had named the project ‘Snehodiya’. Sen was addressing a session at the 5th Real Estate Conclave on ‘Navigating the Undercurrents’ at a city hotel on Saturday. Also Read – Rs 13,000 crore investment to provide 2 lakh jobs: Mamata’Snehodiya’ is a project of the WBHIDCO, which is a first-of-its-kind venture by any state government agency. There are around 100 rooms and a guest house comprising six rooms. The project has come up opposite Swapno Bhor on a 3.5 acre land and has a two-storeyed building housing a library, an auditorium and a coffee corner. It has been decided that 75 percent of the price paid at the time of purchase will be refunded to the occupants or their heirs in case the flat is vacated. There will be a senior citizens’ park. There will be doctors, nurses and attendants to look after the elderly. It will have all the modern facilities, Sen said. He also stressed on the necessity of introducing more paying guest facilities in and around New Town and Sector V to accommodate a large number of working professionals coming to the city. Nandu Belani, president of CREDAI, Bengal, said the real estate is a major contributor to the economy in Eastern India and it plays an important role in fulfilling the basic needs and aspirations of the common people.
June 16, 2008 This week-end was filled with wonderful music during the JUNETEENTH 2008 Jazz Splash Festival. Images of the performances will be posted on 6/18/08. Today’s report gives a few glimpses of some of the preparation for the event. We reported on 1/18 through 1/25/08 about the removal of the old tent that covered the Colly Soleri Amphitheater. Planning department and Graphics are working on a new design for coverage of the stage and seating area. [photo] David Tollas and Jeff Buderer are on top of scaffolding, errected on the stage of the theater, to secure the mid-point of a parachute. [Photo & text: sa] An interim solution for shelter from the intense sun during this 3-day event, was worked out by Director Tomiaki Tamura. Maintenance crew custom cut and trimmed pieces from good parts of the old tent and installed them over the stage area. Construction crew, and many volunteers from other departments, installed a very large parachute to cover the seating area. [Photo & text: sa] The parachute was folded in half, each cord lined up and linked with its opposite and strong rope tied to the individual cords. With the crew distributed along the third floor of the west side of the East Crescent and along the roof of the east side, the ropes were slowly tied in tandem to have clean and even distribution over the stepped seating area. A smaller parachute was installed over the keystone area to give shade to some of the vendors [photos on 6/18]. [Photo & text: sa]
The Shiller P/E (S&P 500 divided by the 10-year average of inflation-adjusted earnings) is now 27, versus a long-term historical norm of 15 prior to the late 1990s bubble. Importantly, the profit margin embedded into the Shiller P/E is currently 6.7% versus a historical norm of just 5.4%. The implied margin is simply the denominator of the Shiller P/E divided by current S&P 500 revenues (the ratio of trailing 12-month earnings to revenues is even higher at 8.9%). As I showed in “Margins, Multiples and the Iron Law of Valuation,” taking this embedded margin into account significantly improves the usefulness and correlation of the Shiller P/E in explaining actual subsequent market returns. With this adjustment, the margin-adjusted Shiller P/E is now nearly 34, easily more than double its historical norm. This fact is important, because the Shiller P/E averaged 40 during the first nine months of 2000 as the tech bubble was peaking. But that Shiller P/E was associated with an embedded profit margin of only 5.0%. Adjusting for that embedded margin brings the margin-adjusted Shiller P/E at the 2000 peak to 37. Quite simply, stocks are a claim not on one or two years of earnings, but on a very long-term stream of cash flows that will actually be delivered into the hands of investors over time. For the S&P 500, that stream has an effective duration of about 50 years. At normal valuations, stocks have a duration of about half that because a larger proportion of the cash flows is delivered up front. The point is that our concerns about valuation aren’t based on what profit margins might do over the next several years. To take earnings-based valuation measures at face value here is essentially a statement that current record-high profit margins, despite being highly cyclical across history, will remain at a permanently high plateau for the next five decades. That’s the only way that one can use current earnings as representative of the long-term stream of cash flows that stocks will deliver over time. In order to use a simple P/E multiple to value stocks, this representativeness assumption is an absolute requirement. On other measures that have an even stronger historical correlation with actual subsequent market returns than either the Shiller P/E or the S&P 500 price/operating earnings ratio, the ratio of stock market capitalization to GDP is now about 1.33, compared to a pre-bubble norm of 0.55. The S&P 500 price/revenue multiple is now about 1.80, versus a historical norm of 0.80. On the measures we find most reliably associated with actual subsequent 10-year market returns (with a correlation of about 90%), the S&P 500 is not just double, but about 120-140% above historical norms. On a broader set of reliable but more varied measures, the elevation averages about 116%. Current equity valuations provide no margin of safety for long-term investors. One might as well be investing on a dare. It may seem preposterous to suggest that equities are literally more than double the level that would provide a historically adequate long-term return, but the same was true in 2000, which is why the S&P 500 experienced negative total returns over the following decade, even by 2010 after it had rebounded nearly 80% from the 2009 lows. Compared with 2000 when we estimated negative 10-year total returns for the S&P 500 even on the most optimistic assumptions, we presently estimate S&P 500 10-year nominal total returns averaging about 1.3% annually over the coming decade. Low interest rates don’t change this expectation—they just make the outlook for a standard investment mix even more dismal and the case for alternative investments stronger than at any point since 2000. I’ll repeat that if one associates historically “normal” equity returns with Treasury bill yields of about 4%, the promise to hold short-term interest rates at zero for 3-4 years only “justifies” equity valuations 12-16% above historical norms. Again, at more than double those historical norms, current equity valuations provide no margin of safety for long-term investors. To put some full-cycle perspective around present valuations, understand that 1929 and 2000 are the only historical references to similar extremes. Moreover, aside from the 2000-2002 bear market (which ended at fairly elevated valuations but still allowed us to shift to a constructive outlook in early 2003), no bear market in history—including 2009—ended with prospective 10-year returns less than 8% (See “Ockham’s Razor and the Market Cycle” to review the arithmetic of these estimates). This was true even in historical periods when short- and long-term interest rates were similar to current levels. Currently, such an improvement in prospective equity returns would require a move to about 1,200 on the S&P 500, which we would view as a fairly pedestrian completion of the current market cycle—certainly not an outlier from the standpoint of historical experience. Major secular valuation lows like 1949, 1974, and 1982 pushed stocks to valuations consistent with prospective 10-year returns over 18% annually, and dragged the S&P 500 price/revenue ratio to about 0.40, and the ratio of market capitalization/GDP to about 0.33. At present, a secular valuation low would require “S&P 500” to be not only an index but a price target—though one that would also make a rather satisfying megaphone pattern out of the past 15 years of market action. Such an outcome only seems preposterous if one ignores the cyclicality of profit margins and assumes they have established a permanently high plateau. In any event, with the current price/revenue ratio at 1.80 and market cap/GDP at 1.33, the notion that stocks are in the early phase of a secular bull market (as some Wall Street analysts have suggested) can only reflect a complete ignorance of the historical record. The Line Between Rational Speculation and Market Collapse However—and this is really where the experience of the past few years and our research-based adaptations come into play—there are some conditions that historically appear capable of supporting what might be called “rational speculation” even in a severely overvalued market. Depending on the level of overvaluation, a safety net might be required in any event, and that would certainly be the case if those conditions were to re-emerge here. But following my 2009 insistence on stress-testing our methods against Depression-era data, and the terribly awkward transition that we experienced until we nailed down these distinctions in our present methods, the central lesson is worth repeating: Neither our stress-testing against Depression-era data, nor the adaptations we’ve made in response extreme yield-seeking speculation, do anything to diminish our conviction that historically reliable valuation measures are of immense importance to investors. Rather, the lessons to be drawn have to do with the criteria that distinguish periods where valuations have little near-term impact from periods where they suddenly matter with a vengeance. I detailed these lessons in my June 16, 2014 comment—“Formula for Market Extremes” (see the section titled Lessons from the Recent Half Cycle). That’s really the point at which we were finally able to put a box around this awkward transition and view it as fully addressed. See also “Air Pockets, Free Falls, and Crashes,” “A Most Important Distinction,” and “Hard-Won Lessons and the Bird in the Hand.” Historically, the emergence of extremely overvalued, overbought, overbullish conditions has typically been followed by an “unpleasant skew”—a succession of small but persistent marginal new highs, followed by a vertical collapse in which weeks or months of gains are wiped out in a handful of sessions. In prior market cycles, more often than not, periods of extremely overextended conditions were also already accompanied by a subtle deterioration in market internals or widening credit spreads. In recent years, the persistent yield-seeking speculation encouraged by quantitative easing has weakened the overlap between these two conditions. That is, we’ve had repeated periods of severely overvalued, overbought, overbullish conditions, but they often have not been accompanied by internal deterioration or widening credit spreads. In those periods, stocks were generally resilient to significant losses. In contrast—even since 2009—periods that have joined 1) overvalued, overbought, overbullish conditions with 2) deteriorating internals or widening credit spreads have been responsible for nearly stairstep market losses. During the tech bubble, we introduced considerations related to market internals (what I often called “trend uniformity”) as an overlay to our value-driven models. So our pre-2009 method of classifying market return/risk profiles had this distinction hard-wired into it. The ensemble methods that came out of our 2009-2010 stress-testing efforts were more effective in market cycles across history—including Depression-era data—but while they included trend-sensitive measures, they didn’t impose them as an overlay. The basic narrative of the transition from those pre-2009 methods to our present ones boils down to 1) our self-inflicted stress testing miss, and 2) the need to re-introduce those overlays (albeit in a somewhat different form) to make our methods more tolerant of speculative bubbles. We certainly learned all of this the hard way, and my hope is that others will draw some benefit from that experience. Unfortunately, my sense is that many have learned entirely the wrong lesson, and are just as vulnerable to the next crash as they were to the other two collapses in recent memory. You can see the effect of imposing those overlays in the narrowing of conditions under which we view a hard-negative outlook as appropriate. See last week’s comment, “Iceberg at the Starboard Bow,” for a chart of the cumulative performance of the S&P 500 across history in periods restricted to the conditions we presently observe. Now, if we do observe an improvement in market internals and credit spreads, it would not make valuations any less obscene, but it would significantly ease our immediate concerns about market losses. A safety net would be required in any event, but there is a range of possible outlooks between hard-negative and constructive with a safety net. I suspect that the range of variation in our investment outlook is likely to be very confusing in the coming years to those who have swallowed the hook that I’m a permabear, because our present methods would have encouraged an unhedged, leveraged investment stance through about 62% of history (including over 20% of recent cycle—though at no time in the past three years). That’s exactly what I encouraged for years following the 1990 bear market—a leveraged stance. Those who’ve followed my work over the long term should recognize that the framework I’ve presented helps to understand both my major successes and my periodic failures—exasperating during bubbles, but ultimately vindicated—through decades in the financial markets. This isn’t an accident, because it also helps to understand the bubbles and crashes of the equity market itself in market cycles across a century of history. What this framework requires, primarily, is the ability to withstand the cognitive dissonance of markets that are outrageously overvalued or undervalued, but persist until subtle deterioration or improvement in observable market internals and credit spreads indicates a shift in investor risk preferences. Again, we completed the transition from our pre-2009 method to our present method of classifying market return/risk profiles in June. The resulting adaptations are robust to market cycles across history, including the Depression, including recent bubbles and crashes, and including the current cycle. With these adaptations in place, nothing in recent years leaves us concerned that we would be unable to navigate a long continuation of the recent bull market (unlikely as we might view that outcome). We don’t need to hope for a market collapse, nor dread the possibility of a further advance. Our primary goal is simply to maintain a historically informed discipline and align our outlook consistently as market conditions change. At present, the fact that we are highly concerned about market risk is a reflection of a market environment that joins extremely overvalued, overbought, overbullish conditions with still-troubling dispersion in market internals and a widening of credit spreads. That will change. In short, our concerns about market risk remain extreme at present, and will shift considerably as the evidence changes.
Recommended Link Recommended Link Watch now Click here to for the latest update — Transfer the funds you’ve set aside for crypto to the exchange and buy bitcoin. Justin’s note: Today, we have a big-picture update on the crypto market from Casey Research’s in-house crypto specialist, Marco Wutzer. Below, Marco shows us why the blockchain and cryptos are still going to create a huge amount of wealth for smart speculators… why the next bull market will be more powerful than the last… and how you can start profiting today. By Marco Wutzer, senior analyst, Disruptive ProfitsEight seconds.That’s how long you have to grab someone’s attention before they mentally drift off to the next thing. That’s one second less than a goldfish.Thanks to constant interruptions by smartphones and multitasking, our attention spans are getting shorter all the time.This is also reflected in absurd investor behavior…Over the last five decades, the average holding period for a stock has steadily declined. It’s fallen from eight years to a mere four months since the 1960s. You can see this in the chart below:I wouldn’t be surprised if that average is even shorter in the fast-paced, 24/7 crypto market.Why am I telling you this?Put simply, if you want to be a successful crypto speculator, you need to take a long-term view. Download and install a crypto wallet. Exodus is my personal favorite. — Will Donald Trump Be Your Last President?…A major political coup is unfolding in America that will topple Donald Trump’s presidency… Only those who prepare will be able to live in peace in a new socialist America. In this video, we lay out the simple steps you can take right now to protect your assets but survive the next recession…
The Porshe avoided several obstacles, including a dog and a bike, as it drove in a straight line China’s Huawei used the artificial intelligence capabilities of its flagship Mate 10 Pro phone to drive a sports car as the Mobile World Congress got under way in Barcelona Monday, in what it said was a world first. The Porshe avoided several obstacles, including a dog and a bike, as it drove in a straight line to demonstrate the AI-powered object recognition technology in the phone’s camera.The tech giant said it was “the first mobile device manufacturer in the world to use an AI-powered smartphone to drive a car,” saying the technology was able to distinguish between thousands of different objects and thereby able to avoid any collision.Huawei said the test was only designed to demonstrate its phone’s AI capabilities and did not plan to develop a new driverless car. “The smartphone totally controls the vehicle, we did not do anything except for steering elements,” said Arne Herkelmann, who heads Huawei’s handset portfolio in Europe.”The camera sees that there is something on the road, recognises what it is and acts to avoid it, we trained our AI to be able to recognise a road and its possible obstacles.”In 2017, Huawei was the world’s third biggest seller of smartphones after Samsung and Apple, holding a 10.4 percent market share, up from 9.5 percent a year earlier, according to figures from research firm IDC. Citation: Huawei’s AI-powered smartphone drives a Porsche (2018, February 26) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-02-huawei-ai-powered-smartphone-porsche.html Huawei launches new tablet in flagship phone hiatus © 2018 AFP Explore further This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
CBS sues to block effort to ‘force’ merger with Viacom This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. © 2018 AFP National Amusements Inc said the move was designed “to safeguard against unlawful action by CBS and its special committee” which had been moving to weaken the control of Shari Redstone, daughter of the ailing 94-year-old former chairman Sumner Redstone.Under the new bylaws, any change in voting power would require a “supermajority,” according to a statement from National Amusements.The holding company said it acted to head off “the irresponsible action taken by CBS and its special committee,” claiming it “put in motion a chain of events that poses significant risk to CBS.”CBS said the move “provides further evidence of why we concluded that we had no choice but to file our action in the Delaware courts, in order to protect the interests of all CBS shareholders. “It added that “we are confident in our position and look forward to presenting our case in court.”The family holding company owns around 10 percent of the equity of CBS but its special voting shares give it approximately 80 percent of the voting power.National Amusements took the action days after CBS filed suit alleging that Shari Redstone was seeking to “force” a merger with rival Viacom on unfavorable terms.The two sides were headed for a court hearing on a CBS request for a restraining order against Shari Redstone ahead of a board meeting Thursday.CBS said its board committee had recommended a special dividend that would have the effect of diluting the voting power of the Redstone family.The lawsuit alleges that Shari Redstone is seeking to force through a merger of CBS and media rival Viacom “on terms that are contrary to the best interests of the public stockholders.”Redstone’s court brief called the CBS effort a “brazen attempt to disenfranchise a controlling stockholder” and said the holding company “does not have, and has never had, any intention of replacing the CBS Board or taking other action to force a merger.”The lawsuit is the latest drama involving the media-entertainment empire built by Sumner Redstone, whose fitness and mental status have been questioned in legal proceedings.A decade ago, Sumner Redstone split CBS and Viacom but retained control of both media firms through his holding company.Shari Redstone, acting on behalf of her ailing father, effectively controls both firms through National Amusements’ special voting shares.A separate legal clash ended in 2016 when Viacom chief Philippe Dauman agreed to step down and drop his lawsuit alleging a power grab by Shari Redstone in the absence of her incapacitated father. Shari Redstone, who controls CBS through the family holding company National Amusements, denounced a “brazen” effort by the media firm’s board to dilute her voting shares Explore further Citation: Redstone family blocks move to dilute its CBS vote power (2018, May 16) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-05-redstone-family-blocks-dilute-cbs.html The struggle over the future of CBS Corp. took a new twist Wednesday as the holding company for controlling shareholder Shari Redstone said it revised the bylaws of the media group, a move aimed at heading off an effort to dilute her voting power.